Quality-Based Evaluation of Patient-Facing Online Education Materials Regarding Facial Filler Procedures

Abstract

Injectable facial fillers have become tremendously more popular in recent years, and the Internet offers a proportional amount of consumer-facing educational material. This study sought to explore the quality of these online materials. The top 20 Web sites offering educational materials about facial filler were identified via Google search and sorted by source: Medical Professional Boards, Hospitals and Providers, Medical News and Reference, and Fashion. The materials were assessed for overall quality with the validated DISCERN instrument. The authors also assessed understandability and actionability (Patient Education Material Assessment Tool - PEMAT), accuracy, comprehensiveness, and readability (Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level and Flesch Reading Ease). The mean DISCERN score was 46.9 ± 7.6, which is considered “fair” quality educational material; above “poor,” but below “good” and “excellent.” Understandability and actionability scores were low, particularly with respect to visual aids. The materials were generally accurate (76–99%), but scored poorly in comprehensiveness, as 15% failed to mention any risks/adverse effects and only 35% mentioned cost. On average, readability was at an 11th grade level, far more complex than ideal (< 6th grade level). Information disseminated from seemingly reputable sources such as professional boards and hospitals/providers were not of higher quality or superior in any of the above studied domains. In conclusion, online educational materials related to injectable facial fillers are of subpar quality, including those from academic and professional organizations. Visual aids were particularly weak. The facial rejuvenation community should make a concerted effort to set a higher standard for disseminating such information.

Differences in the Medical Advisability of Online Pitching Recommendations for Youth Softball Players Based on Website Source

“… 1 , 2 , 11 However, not as many have directly analyzed the accuracy of web-based materials by website source type. In a few studies that did, the advisability rate ranged from 49.4%, as reported by Peterson et al 20 in their analysis of 87 webpages for the quality of musculoskeletal information on the Internet, to between 76% and 99%, as in Beer et al’s 6 investigation of information regarding facial filler procedures. Our prior analysis of 99 websites regarding pitching recommendations in baseball yielded an advisability rate of 76.8%.…”

Perspectives on the Safety of Botulinum Toxin and Facial Filler Injections

“…12 Information regarding cosmetic injectables is no exception to this trend. In an evaluation of online patient education materials regarding facial filler procedures, Beer et al 14 found that educational materials related to injectable facial fillers are of subpar quality, with 15% failing to mention any risks or adverse effects. Although patients may look toward online sources to obtain health information, the burden of obtaining informed consent ultimately falls to the responsible provider.…”