Accepted for/Published in: JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
Date Submitted: Jun 17, 2023
Open Peer Review Period: Jun 16, 2023 - Jun 30, 2023
Date Accepted: Jan 8, 2024
(closed for review but you can still tweet)
Web-based information on spinal cord stimulation: A qualitative assessment of publicly accessible online resources
ABSTRACT
Background:
Despite the growing accessibility of online information related to spinal cord stimulation (SCS), content and quality of commonly encountered websites remain unknown.
Objective:
To assess the content and quality of web-based information on SCS.
Methods:
This qualitative study was prospectively registered in Open Science Framework. Google Trends was used to identify the top trending, SCS-related search queries from 2012-2022. Top queried terms were then entered into separate search engines. Information found on websites within the first two pages of results were extracted and assessed for quality using the DISCERN instrument, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, and the Health on the Net Foundation (HON) code of conduct certification. Website readability, and SCS-related information were also assessed.
Results:
After exclusions, 42 unique sites were identified (scientific resources=6, non-profit=12, for-profit=20, news/media=2, personal/blog=2). Overall, information quality was moderate (DISCERN). Few sites met all JAMA benchmark criteria (7%) or had HON certification (16%). On average, information was difficult to read, requiring a 9th to 10th grade level of reading comprehension. Sites described SCS subcategories (33%), indications (90%), contraindications (33%), side-effects/risks (66%), device considerations (59%), follow-up (52%), expected outcomes (73%) and provided authorship details (47%) and publication dates (45%). The proportion of for-profit sites reporting authorship information was comparatively less than other site types (15%). Almost all sites focused on surgically implanted SCS (88%). On average, non-profit sites contained the greatest number of peer-reviewed reference citations (50%). For-profit sites showed the highest proportion of physician/clinical referrals among site types (85%) indicating implicit bias (i.e., auto-referral).
Conclusions:
Overall, our findings suggest the public may be exposed to incomplete, and/or dated information from unidentifiable sources which could put consumers and patient groups at risk. Clinical Trial: Not applicable
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.