Cosmetic facial surgery: are online resources reliable and do patients understand them?

Awal, D.; Mills, Caroline

doi:10.1016/j.bjoms.2017.12.011

Cited by 19 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Patient educational materials on websites curated by established plastic surgical societies, universities, private practices, and media publishing groups ranged in readability level from 10 to 14.7, which is 4–8.7 grades higher than the recommended 6th grade reading level. [ 14 , 15 , 21 , 26 – 28 ] No single study found patient educational materials to be at an acceptable reading level. Thus, we strongly encourage the development of targeted interventions to improve the readability of online patient educational materials in plastic surgery across all platforms.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Multimetric Readability Analysis of Online Patient Educational Materials for Submental Fat Reduction

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Patients often utilize the Internet to seek information related to their care. This study assesses the readability of online patient educational materials for submental fat reduction. Methods Patient educational materials from the 12 most popular websites related to submental fat reduction were downloaded and assessed for readability grade level using 10 unique scales. Results Analysis of the 12 most popular websites (and corresponding 47 articles) revealed that patient educational materials were written, on average, at an 11th grade reading level. The Flesch Reading Ease score was 48.9 (range 39.8–59.2), representing a “difficult” level of reading. Mean readability grade levels (range 9–13th grade for individual websites) were as follows: Coleman-Liau, 11.1; Flesch-Kincaid, 10.8; FORCAST, 10.8; Fry Graph, 10.1; Gunning Fog, 12.7; New Dale-Chall, 10.1; New Fog Count, 11.8; Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, 11.7; Raygor, 6.7. No website was at the 6th grade reading level for patient educational materials recommended by the American Medical Association and National Institutes of Health. Conclusions Online patient educational materials for submental fat reduction are written well above the recommended reading level. Recognition of disparities in health literacy is necessary to enable patients to make informed decisions and become active participants in their own care. Level of Evidence V This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Multimetric Readability Analysis of Online Patient Educational Materials for Submental Fat Reduction

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Prior reports suggest that online information on rhytidectomy is written at a higher academic grade level than what is recommended by NIH and AMA readability guidelines. 5,6 A recent report describing the top online sources (n=29) for the search term "rhytidectomy" found information quality to be…”

Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…poor according to several assessment metrics. 6 However, top webpages associated with the more common layman term "facelift" or "face lift" have not been subjected to a comprehensive quality assessment.…”

Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rhytidectomy—Information Patients Seek and Where They Find Answers

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Patients considering rhytidectomy often search for information online prior to in-office consultation. This study identifies the most searched queries regarding rhytidectomy and evaluates sources to which patients are directed. Methods: The search engine optimization tool Ahrefs was utilized to extract Google metadata on searches performed in the United States. Frequently asked questions were categorized by topic; websites were categorized by type. JAMA benchmark criteria enabled information quality assessment. Results: A total of 565 questions for three search phrases were extracted (265 “facelift”, 265 “face lift”, 35 “rhytidectomy”). The majority of monthly searches in the facelift and face lift groups pertained to procedural cost, which was significantly higher than in the rhytidectomy group (52.9% and 50.7% vs 0.0%, ANOVA p<0.001). The mean JAMA score for private practice sources (1.2±0.42) was significantly lower than that of academic pages of (2.3±1.9, p=0.026) and commercial sources (3.0±0.82, p=0.008). The most popular destinations for rhytidectomy were California and Mexico (630 and 440 searches/month). Conclusion: Online searches for facelifts often revolve around the topic of cost and frequently direct patients to websites that provide inadequate information on authorship, attribution, disclosure, and currency.

show abstract

“…Past studies have considered a score of 50 the lower limit of acceptable quality. 19,31 The JAMA benchmark criteria assess each website for the presence of 4 core standards: the authorship of the medical content, the attribution or source of information, the currency or last date of update, and disclosures of ownership, sponsorship, advertisement policy, and conflicts of interest. In this study, information on private practice websites was assumed to have been authored by the provider(s) listed with the practice.…”

Section: Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1,15 Unfortunately, many surgical specialties have found that their online PEMs often do not satisfy AMA and NIH recommendations. [16][17][18][19][20][21] Patients seeking orthognathic surgery rely on the internet to obtain additional information, support, and reassurance. 22 Although functional and esthetic improvements are major components of patient satisfaction, 23 communication between patient and provider and overall patient expectations also have been shown to influence levels of satisfaction.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Online Patient Education Materials for Orthognathic Surgery Fail to Meet Readability and Quality Standards

Lee

Berg

Jazayeri

et al. 2019

Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cosmetic facial surgery: are online resources reliable and do patients understand them?

Cited by 19 publications

References 15 publications

A Multimetric Readability Analysis of Online Patient Educational Materials for Submental Fat Reduction

A Multimetric Readability Analysis of Online Patient Educational Materials for Submental Fat Reduction

Rhytidectomy—Information Patients Seek and Where They Find Answers

Online Patient Education Materials for Orthognathic Surgery Fail to Meet Readability and Quality Standards

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About