Download PDF
Facial Plast Surg 2022; 38(03): 300-306
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1741400
Original Research

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

Adam J. Beer 
1   Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois
,
Michael Eggerstedt
1   Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois
,
Matthew J. Urban
1   Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois
,
Ryan M. Smith
1   Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois
,
Peter C. Revenaugh
1   Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

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.

Keywords

facial filler - injectable - patient education - quality


Publication History

Article published online:
11 January 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Aesthetic Plastic Surgery National Databank Statistics. 2019 ; 2019 at https://www.surgery.org/media/statistics
    PubMed
  • 2 Woolf SH, Chan EC, Harris R. et al. Promoting informed choice: transforming health care to dispense knowledge for decision making. Ann Intern Med 2005; 143 (04) 293-300
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Wald HS, Dube CE, Anthony DC. Untangling the Web–the impact of Internet use on health care and the physician-patient relationship. Patient Educ Couns 2007; 68 (03) 218-224
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Storino A, Castillo-Angeles M, Watkins AA. et al. Assessing the accuracy and readability of online health information for patients with pancreatic cancer. JAMA Surg 2016; 151 (09) 831-837
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Spiers H, Amin N, Lakhani R, Martin AJ, Patel PM. Assessing readability and reliability of online patient information regarding vestibular schwannoma. Otol Neurotol 2017; 38 (10) e470-e475
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Purdy AC, Idriss A, Ahern S, Lin E, Elfenbein DM. Dr Google: the readability and accuracy of patient education websites for Graves' disease treatment. Surgery 2017; 162 (05) 1148-1154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Karamitros GA, Kitsos NA, Sapountzis S. Systematic review of quality of patient information on phalloplasty in the Internet. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2017; 41 (06) 1426-1434
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Dy CJ, Taylor SA, Patel RM, McCarthy MM, Roberts TR, Daluiski A. Does the quality, accuracy, and readability of information about lateral epicondylitis on the internet vary with the search term used?. Hand (N Y) 2012; 7 (04) 420-425
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Clear & Simple. National Institutes of Health. Accessed March, 2021 at https://www.nih.gov/institutes-nih/nih-office-director/office-communications-public-liaison/clear-communication/clear-simple
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Shepperd S, Charnock D. Why DISCERN?. Health Expect 1998; 1 (02) 134-135
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Shoemaker SJ, Wolf MS, Brach C. Development of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT): a new measure of understandability and actionability for print and audiovisual patient information. Patient Educ Couns 2014; 96 (03) 395-403
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Diaz JA, Sciamanna CN, Evangelou E, Stamp MJ, Ferguson T. Brief report: what types of Internet guidance do patients want from their physicians?. J Gen Intern Med 2005; 20 (08) 683-685
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Fox S, Duggan M. Health Online 2013. Pew Research Center. Accessed May 10, 2021 https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2013/01/15/health-online-2013/
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 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
  • 15 Quinn EM, Corrigan MA, McHugh SM. et al. Breast cancer information on the internet: analysis of accessibility and accuracy. Breast 2012; 21 (04) 514-517
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Kulasegarah J, McGregor K, Mahadevan M. Quality of information on the Internet-has a decade made a difference?. Ir J Med Sci 2018; 187 (04) 873-876
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Barbarite E, Shaye D, Oyer S, Lee LN. Quality assessment of online patient information for cosmetic botulinum toxin. Aesthet Surg J 2020; 40 (11) NP636-NP642
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Madden T, Cortez S, Kuzemchak M, Kaphingst KA, Politi MC. Accuracy of information about the intrauterine device on the Internet. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016; 214 (04) 499.e1-499.e6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Nayfeh T, Shah S, Malandris K. et al. A systematic review supporting the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery guidelines on the prevention and treatment of adverse events of injectable fillers. Dermatol Surg 2021; 47 (02) 227-234
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Goslin RA, Elhassan HA. Evaluating internet health resources in ear, nose, and throat surgery. Laryngoscope 2013; 123 (07) 1626-1631
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Alwani MM, Campiti VJ, Bandali EH, Nesemeier BR, Ting JY, Shipchandler TZ. Evaluation of the quality of printed online education materials in cosmetic facial plastic surgery. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med 2020; 22 (04) 255-261
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Lee KC, Berg ET, Jazayeri HE, Chuang SK, Eisig SB. Online patient education materials for orthognathic surgery fail to meet readability and quality standards. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019; 77 (01) 180.e1-180.e8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Chen LW, Harris VC, Jia JL, Xie DX, Tufano RP, Russell JO. Search trends and quality of online resources regarding thyroidectomy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2021; 165 (01) 50-58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Doruk C, Enver N, Çaytemel B, Azezli E, Başaran B. Readability, understandability, and quality of online education materials for vocal fold nodules. J Voice 2020; 34 (02) 302.e15-302.e20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Balakrishnan V, Chandy Z, Hseih A, Bui TL, Verma SP. Readability and understandability of online vocal cord paralysis materials. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2016; 154 (03) 460-464
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Kruse J, Toledo P, Belton TB. et al. Readability, content, and quality of COVID-19 patient education materials from academic medical centers in the United States. Am J Infect Control 2021; 49 (06) 690-693
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Visla J, Shatola A, Wisner DH, Shaikh U. Understandability and actionability of online information on hypertension. Popul Health Manag 2019; 22 (04) 369
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Rubel KE, Alwani MM, Nwosu OI. et al. Understandability and actionability of audiovisual patient education materials on sinusitis. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2020; 10 (04) 564-571
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Lipari M, Berlie H, Saleh Y, Hang P, Moser L. Understandability, actionability, and readability of online patient education materials about diabetes mellitus. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2019; 76 (03) 182-186
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Harris VC, Links AR, Hong P. et al. Consulting Dr. Google: quality of online resources about tympanostomy tube placement. laryngoscope 2018; 128 (02) 496-501
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Narwani V, Nalamada K, Lee M, Kothari P, Lakhani R. Readability and quality assessment of internet-based patient education materials related to laryngeal cancer. Head Neck 2016; 38 (04) 601-605
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Xie DX, Wang RY, Chinnadurai S. Readability of online patient education materials for velopharyngeal insufficiency. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2018; 104: 113-119
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 McKearney RM, MacKinnon RC, Smith M, Baker R. Tinnitus information online - does it ring true?. J Laryngol Otol 2018; 132 (11) 984-989
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Haymes AT. The quality of rhinoplasty health information on the Internet. Ann Plast Surg 2016; 76 (02) 143-149
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 de Kunder M. The size of the World Wide Web (The Internet). Accessed July 13, 2021 at https://www.worldwidewebsize.com/
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 McGoldrick DM. et al. Quality of information about maxillofacial trauma on the Internet. The British journal of oral & maxillofacial surgery vol. 55,2 (2017): 141-144
    PubMedGoogle Scholar