Informing patients: oculoplastic surgery and the internet

Abstract

Aims Oculoplastic surgery has received little attention compared with other subspecialties in terms of how the internet influences patient expectations. Blepharoplasty resembles a model for oculoplastic operations. We aimed to assess the quality of information accessed by patients on blepharoplasty using the internet as a resource. Methods After surveying doctors and lay persons, the word 'blepharoplasty' and related terms were studied using an advanced keyword search. This scanned average monthly search volume over a recent 12-month period. The three most popular search terms that were found were entered into the Google search engine. Criteria published in the Journal of the American Medical Association for qualifying information from the internet were used in the analysis, yielding a possible score from 0 to a maximum of 4. Results Of the 150 websites that were studied, these criteria were fully applied to 101 websites. Only 2.5% of sites scored favourably on all four criteria; 6.5% scored three points; 10% scored two points; 41% scored one point; 40% of sites scored zero for objective quality. Superior scores were achieved by online encyclopaedias ('medipedias'), peer-reviewed journals, online abstracts, and book chapters. The websites of professional bodies scored poorly. The lowest scored were private clinics and National Health Service (NHS) hospital websites. Conclusions Using the internet, the quality of information obtained for oculoplastic surgery seems far inferior to other subspecialties within ophthalmology as well as nonophthalmic specialties. These findings are specifically relevant to surgeons carrying out blepharoplasty and of general relevance to ophthalmic plastic surgeons.

Oculoplastic Internet Resources for Plastic Surgeons

“…9 Good information sites and evidence-based directories do exist, 3,4 but basic deficiencies in site design and disclosure are prevalent in both the public and private sector. 2 Plastic surgeons have similar learning styles to many other professionals, 10 and e-learning can be successfully integrated in to a curriculum in a user-friendly manner. 11 The websites we have highlighted are useful resources but as sites become increasingly complex, the basic requirements of authorship, disclosure, appropriate referencing, and date indexing need to be addressed to maintain credibility.…”

“…1 There is a wealth of information available on oculoplastic surgery but many websites contain information that is inaccurate or misleading and few reflect the standards expected in peer reviewed publication. 2 Useful sites do exist and have been catalogued previously. 3,4 Our purpose was to search for sites of interest to students of plastic surgery.…”

O uso da internet como fonte de informação sobre cirurgia plástica na Bahia, Brasil

“…Sites related to plastic surgery clinics were most often vi sited by patients, followed by the BSPS website. A survey assessing the quality of websites related to blepharoplasty shows that private clinics are among the worst, together with "questionandanswer" sites, advertisements, and professional websites 11 . Patients should be encouraged to seek in formation on the BSPS website because of its scientific content.…”

“…Regarding plastic surgery, 34% of sites related to "breast augmentation" provide false or misleading information on this surgical procedure as well as its benefits and risks 10 . Another study reported availability of poorqua lity information on blepharoplasty, partially due to the large numbers of commercial sites, i.e., private health clinic web sites 11 . However, few studies have assessed the characteris tics of Internet usage by patients and how the information obtained affects their decision to undergo surgery.…”

Web-based information on glaucoma

“…2 In oculoplastic surgery the quality of web-based information has been investigated using an instrument published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) which comprises four criteria: (1) authorship; (2) attribution of sources; (3) disclosure, for example, duality of interest declarations; (4) time records for posting information. 3,4 These yield a score from 0 to a maximum of 4. We have studied and presented outcomes for glaucoma using this instrument applied to the Google search engine.…”