No abstract

Level IV, systematic review of level II to IV studies.

BackgroundIn today's technologically advanced world, 75% of patients have used Google to search for health information. As a result, health care professionals fear that patients may be misinformed. Currently, there is a paucity of data on the quality and readability of Web-based health information on fractures.ObjectivesIn this study, we assessed the quality and readability of Web-based health information related to the 10 most common fractures.MethodsUsing the Google search engine, we assessed websites from the first results page for the 10 most common fractures using lay search terms. Website quality was measured using the DISCERN instrument, which scores websites as very poor (15-22.5), poor (22.5-37.5), fair (37.5-52.5), good (52.5-67.5), or excellent (67.5-75). The presence of Health on the Net code (HONcode) certification was assessed for all websites. Website readability was measured using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (0-100), where 60-69 is ideal for the general public, and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL; −3.4 to ∞), where the mean FKGL of the US adult population is 8.ResultsOverall, website quality was “fair” for all fractures, with a mean (standard deviation) DISCERN score of 50.3 (5.8). The DISCERN score correlated positively with a higher website position on the search results page (r2=0.1, P=.002) and with HONcode certification (P=.007). The mean (standard deviation) Flesch Reading Ease Score and FKGL for all fractures were 62.2 (9.1) and 6.7 (1.6), respectively.ConclusionThe quality of Web-based health information on fracture care is fair, and its readability is appropriate for the general public. To obtain higher quality information, patients should select HONcode-certified websites. Furthermore, patients should select websites that are positioned higher on the results page because the Google ranking algorithms appear to rank the websites by quality.

BackgroundCurrently, there is a lack of knowledge regarding patient perceptions surrounding physician reimbursements, appropriate wait times, and out-of-pocket payment options for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Our objective was to determine the current state of these perceptions in an Ontario setting.MethodsA survey was developed and pretested to address patient perceptions about physician reimbursements, appropriate wait times, and out-of-pocket payment options for ACLR using a focus group of experts and by reviewing prior surveys. The survey was administered to patients in a waiting room setting.ResultsTwo hundred and fifty completed surveys were obtained (79.9% response rate). Participants responded that an appropriate physician reimbursement for ACLR was $1000.00 and that the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) reimbursed physicians $700.00 for ACLR. Seventy-four percent of participants responded that the OHIP reimbursement of $615.20 for the procedure was either lower or much lower than what they considered to be an appropriate reimbursement for ACLR. Over 90% of participants responded that an ACLR should occur within 90 days of injury. Thirty-five percent of participants were willing to pay $750.00 out-of-pocket to have an ACLR done sooner, while 16.4% of participants were willing to pay $2500.00 out-of-pocket to travel outside of Canada for expedited surgery.ConclusionThis survey study demonstrates that patients’ estimates of both appropriate and actual physician reimbursements were greater than the current reimbursement for ACLR. Further, the majority of individuals report that the surgical fee for ACLR is lower than what they consider to be an appropriate amount of compensation for the procedure. Additionally, nearly all respondents believe that a ruptured ACL should be reconstructed within 90 days of injury. Consequently, a number of patients are willing to pay out-of-pocket for expedited surgery either in Canada or abroad. However, patients’ preferences for shorter wait times must be balanced with the known risk of arthrofibrosis associated with early ACLR.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40634-017-0076-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Distracted driving is a global epidemic, injuring and killing thousands of people every year. To better understand why people still engage in this dangerous behavior, we need to assess how the public gets informed about this issue. Knowing that many people use the internet as their primary source of initial research on topics of interest, we conducted an assessment of popular distracted driving videos found on YouTube. Objective This study aimed to gauge the popularity of distracted driving videos and to assess the messages portrayed by classifying the content, context, and quality of the information available on YouTube. Methods We conducted a search on YouTube using 5 different phrases related to distracted driving. Videos with more than 3000 views that mentioned or portrayed any aspect of distracted driving were identified, collected, and analyzed. We measured popularity by the number of videos uploaded annually and the number of views and reactions. Two independent researchers reviewed all the videos for categorical variables. Content variables included distractions; consequences; orthopedic injuries; and whether the videos were real accounts, reenactments, fictitious, funny, serious, and graphic. Context variables assessed the setting of the events in the video, and quality of information was measured by the presence of peer-reviewed studies and inclusion and referencing of statistics. Discrepancies in data collection were resolved by consensus via the coding authors. A comparative subanalysis of the 10 most viewed videos and the overall results was also done. Results The study included a total of 788 videos for review, uploaded to YouTube from 2006 to 2018. An average of 61 videos with greater than 3000 views were uploaded each year (SD 34.6, range 3-113). All videos accumulated 223 million views, 104 million (46.50%) of them being among the 10 most viewed videos. The top 3 distractions depicted included texting, talking on the phone, and eating and/or drinking. Motor vehicle crashes (MVCs) and death were depicted in 742 (94.2%) videos, whereas 166 (21.1%) of the videos depicted injuries. Orthopedic injuries were described in 90 (11.4%) videos. Furthermore, 220 (27.9%) of the videos contained statistics, but only 27 (3.7%) videos referenced a peer-reviewed study. Conclusions This study demonstrates that there is a high interest in viewing distracted driving videos, and the popularity of these videos appears to be relatively stable over time on a forum that fluxes based on the current opinions of its users. The videos mostly focused on phone-related distractions, overlooking many other equally or more common forms of distracted driving. Death, which in reality is a far less common distracted driving consequence than injuries, was portrayed 1.7 times as much. Surprisingly, orthopedic injuries, which lead to a massive source of long-term disability and often result from MVCs, are vastly underrepresented.