Hand
William Kirpatrick; Jack Abboudi; Nayoung Kim; Juana Medina; Mitchell Maltenfort; Daniel Seigerman; Kevin Lutksy; Pedro K. Beredjiklian
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the number of reviews and scores for active members of the American Society for Surgery of the Hand (ASSH) in popular physician rating websites (Healthgrades.com and Vitals.com). Methods: A total of 433 ASSH active members were searched in two ...
Read More
Background: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the number of reviews and scores for active members of the American Society for Surgery of the Hand (ASSH) in popular physician rating websites (Healthgrades.com and Vitals.com). Methods: A total of 433 ASSH active members were searched in two popular rating websites for a total of 866 web searches. Demographic data, overall and subcategory scores, number of reviews, and wait times were scored from each member’s webpage. Results: The average number of reviews per surgeon on Healthgrades.com and Vitals.com were 13.8 (range 1-108) and 9.4 (range 0-148), respectively. The average overall score for physicians was 8.1 out of 10 points. For both websites, the vast majority (80-90%) of active members of the ASSH had 20 or less reviews. Multivariate data analysis revealed no statistical differences in overall score by region (P=0.24) or gender (P=0.38). Increasing physician age negatively correlated with overall score (P=0.01). Wait time was not associated with a negative score (P=0.38). Conclusion: Active members of the ASSH received generally positive reviews. The average number of reviews for active members of the ASSH was exceedingly small, bringing into question the legitimacy and validity of these scores. This is especially important when taking into consideration the increasing popularity of these websites, and the reliance of patients on them to obtain physician information. The clinical implication of this study is that physicians have a vested interest in the legitimacy of the data provided by these websites and other physician rating outlets.
Fatih Küçükdurmaz; Miguel Gomez; Eric Secrist; Javad Parvizi
Abstract
Background: The Internet has become the most widely-used source for patients seeking information more about their health and many sites geared towards this audience have gained widespread use in recent years. Additionally, many healthcare institutions publish their own patient-education web sites with ...
Read More
Background: The Internet has become the most widely-used source for patients seeking information more about their health and many sites geared towards this audience have gained widespread use in recent years. Additionally, many healthcare institutions publish their own patient-education web sites with information regarding common conditions. Little is known about how these resources impact patient health, though, as they have the potential both to inform and to misinform patients regarding their prognosis and possible treatments. In this study we investigated the reliability, readability and quality of information about femoracetabular impingement, a condition which commonly affects young patients.
Methods: The terms “hip impingement” and “femoracetabular impingement” were searched in Google® in November 2013 and the first 30 results were analyzed. The LIDA scale was used to assess website accessibility, usability and reliability. The DISCERN scale was used to assess reliability and quality of information. The FRE score was used to assess readability.
Results: The patient-oriented sites performed significantly worse in LIDA reliability, and DISCERN reliability. However, the FRE score was significantly higher in patient-oriented sites.
Conclusion: According to our results, the websites intended to attract patients searching for information regarding femoroacetabular impingement are providing a highly accessible, readable information source, but do not appear to apply a comparable amount of rigor to scientific literature or healthcare practitioner websites in regard to matters such as citing sources for information, supplying methodology and including a publication date. This indicates that while these resources are easily accessed by patients, there is potential for them to be a source of misinformation.