Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Journal of Academic Ophthalmology 2018; 10(01): e114-e121
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1667203
Research Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

The Current Online Face of U.S. Academic Ophthalmology

Tedi Begaj
1   Department of Medicine, Cambridge Health Alliance, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Massachusetts
,
Omar Helmy
2   Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts
,
Samuel Leeman
2   Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts
,
Shlomit Schaal
2   Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
Further Information

Publication History

16 May 2018

18 June 2018

Publication Date:
27 July 2018 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Purpose To evaluate the comprehensiveness and navigation ease of online content from Web sites of U.S. academic ophthalmology departments.

Design Cross-sectional analysis of 117 U.S. academic ophthalmology department Web sites from October 1 to October 31, 2017.

Methods Data were obtained on various categories, including: clinical access and subspecialty services, social media, patient support and accessibility, residency and fellowship details, and research and faculty characteristics. Percent of Web sites possessing each feature was calculated. In addition, a comparison of content completeness and navigation metrics of Web sites between the US News and World Report top 13 ranked departments and the remaining 96 that possess an ophthalmology residency was performed.

Results Greater than 80% of Web sites list a basic core of information online: address, contact information, resident and faculty characteristics, and clinical expertise. However, only 69.2% have capabilities to donate online and 59.8% supply educational material for common eye conditions. Less than half of institutions list emergency and trauma, oncology, and low-vision rehabilitation services; only 49.6% provide a social network platform. Strikingly, accessibility features are limited; scalable text, changeable color, and multilingual capabilities are available in 20.5, 4.3, and 8.5% of Web sites, respectively. In the comparison of top 13 departments with the remaining 96, the high-ranking departments possess more Web site features, but are just as efficient to navigate.

Conclusion U.S. academic ophthalmology departments in 2017 provide a basic foundation of online content, but few contain abundant features from the viewpoints of different users.

Keywords

academic ophthalmology - ophthalmology Web site - Internet Web site - Internet resource utilization - Web site accessibility

Supplementary Material

 

  • References

  • 1 Hampton K, Goulet LS, Rainie L, Purcell K. Social networking sites and our lives [Technical Report]. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Washington, DC; 2011. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/2011/06/16/social-networking-sites-and-our-lives/
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Tonsaker T, Bartlett G, Trpkov C. Health information on the Internet: gold mine or minefield?. Can Fam Physician 2014; 60 (05) 407-408
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Hartzband P, Groopman J. Untangling the Web—patients, doctors, and the Internet. N Engl J Med 2010; 362 (12) 1063-1066
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Rayess H, Zuliani GF, Gupta A. , et al. Critical analysis of the quality, readability, and technical aspects of online information provided for neck-lifts. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2017; 19 (02) 115-120
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Alsaiari A, Joury A, Aljuaid M, Wazzan M, Pines JM. The content and quality of health information on the internet for patients and families on adult kidney cancer. J Cancer Educ 2017; 32 (04) 878-884
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Nghiem AZ, Mahmoud Y, Som R. Evaluating the quality of internet information for breast cancer. Breast 2016; 25: 34-37
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Fisher JH, O'Connor D, Flexman AM, Shapera S, Ryerson CJ. Accuracy and reliability of internet resources for information on idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2016; 194 (02) 218-225
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Huang G, Fang CH, Agarwal N, Bhagat N, Eloy JA, Langer PD. Assessment of online patient education materials from major ophthalmologic associations. JAMA Ophthalmol 2015; 133 (04) 449-454
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Edmunds MR, Barry RJ, Denniston AK. Readability assessment of online ophthalmic patient information. JAMA Ophthalmol 2013; 131 (12) 1610-1616
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Mayo GL, Lindhorst GC, Rosende C. American ophthalmology graduate medical education and the web: current state of internet resource utilization. Am J Ophthalmol 2003; 135 (05) 708-709
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 U.S. News & World Report. Best Hospitals for Ophthalmology [Report]. 2018. Available at: https://health.usnews.com/best-hospitals/rankings/ophthalmology . Accessed August 8, 2017
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 AAMC. All Medical School Members [Report]. Available at: https://members.aamc.org/eweb/DynamicPage.aspx?webcode=AAMCOrgSearchResult&orgtype=Medical%20School . Accessed November 2017
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 San Francisco Match. 2017 Ophthalmology Residencies [Accessed through applicant portal]. Available at: https://sfmatch.org/SpecialtyInsideAll.aspx?id=2&typ=1&name=Ophthalmology . Accessed November 2017
    PubMed
  • 14 Graham AL, Carpenter KM, Cha S. , et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of Internet interventions for smoking cessation among adults. Subst Abuse Rehabil 2016; 7: 55-69
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Abraham AA, Chow WC, So HK. , et al. Lifestyle intervention using an internet-based curriculum with cell phone reminders for obese Chinese teens: a randomized controlled study. PLoS One 2015; 10 (05) e0125673
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Cotter AP, Durant N, Agne AA, Cherrington AL. Internet interventions to support lifestyle modification for diabetes management: a systematic review of the evidence. J Diabetes Complications 2014; 28 (02) 243-251
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Shekelle P, Eccles MP, Grimshaw JM, Woolf SH. When should clinical guidelines be updated?. BMJ 2001; 323 (7305): 155-157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Byrnes JE, Ranganathan J, Walker BL, Faulkes Z. To crowdfund research, scientists must build an audience for their work. PLoS One 2014; 9 (12) e110329
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Camarota SA, Zeigler K. Immigrants in the United States: A Profile of the Foreign-Born Using 2014 and 2015 Census Bureau Data. Center for Immigration Studies; October 2016
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Varma R, Vajaranant TS, Burkemper B. , et al. Visual impairment and blindness in adults in the United States: demographic and geographic variations from 2015 to 2050. JAMA Ophthalmol 2016; 134 (07) 802-809
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Embi PJ, Desai S, Cooney TG. Use and utility of Web-based residency program information: a survey of residency applicants. J Med Internet Res 2003; 5 (03) e22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Gaeta TJ, Birkhahn RH, Lamont D, Banga N, Bove JJ. Aspects of residency programs' web sites important to student applicants. Acad Emerg Med 2005; 12 (01) 89-92
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Oladeji LO, Yu JC, Oladeji AK, Ponce BA. How useful are orthopedic surgery residency web pages?. J Surg Educ 2015; 72 (06) 1185-1189
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Homer N, Yoon MK. Evaluation of the American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (ASOPRS) Fellowship Program Website Content and Quality. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 33 (06) 471-473
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Silvestre J, Guzman JZ, Abbatematteo JM, Chang B, Levin LS. Evaluation of content and accessibility of hand fellowship websites. Hand (NY) 2015; 10 (03) 516-521
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar