What patients see online: assessing the online identities of Pennsylvania dermatologists

Introduction: Patients use the internet to search for health-related information. We sought to characterize the information that patients find when searching for dermatologists on Google. Methods: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician Comparable Downloadable File was utilized to identify all Medicare-participating dermatologists practicing in Pennsylvania (PA). A custom Google-based search engine was used to search each dermatologist. Up to the top 10 results for each physician were then sorted into: (1) physician, hospital, or healthcare system, (2) third-party, (3) social media, (4) academic journal articles, or (5) other. Results: Within the CMS, 519 health care providers (53.9% male, 46.1% female) self-identified as dermatologists practicing in PA. At least one search result was obtained for each physician (4,963 total search results). About 30.6% (1,519) search results were hospital, health system, or physician-controlled websites, and 26.6% (1,318) were third-party websites (1,318; 26.6%). Social media websites accounted for 601 (12.1%) hits whereas peer-reviewed academic journal websites generated 135 (2.7%) results. One-way chi-square analysis showed domains were not randomly distributed across the five categories (P<0.0001). Conclusion: Dermatologists should be better aware of their digital presence and the strategies to better control their online identity

#radonc: Growth of the Global Radiation Oncology Twitter Network

Introduction Social media connects people globally and may enhance access to radiation oncology information. We characterized the global growth of the radiation oncology Twitter community using the hashtag #radonc. Materials and Methods We analyzed all public tweets bearing the hashtag #radonc from 2014-2019 using Symplur Signals. We collected data on #radonc activity and growth, stakeholder distribution, user geolocation, and languages. We obtained global Twitter user data and calculated average annual growth rates for users and tweets. We analyzed growth rates by stakeholder. We conducted thematic analysis on a sample of tweets in each three-year period using frequently occurring two-word combinations. Results We identified 193,115 tweets including #radonc composed by 16,645 Twitter users. Globally, users wrote in 35 languages and came from 122 countries, with the known highest users from the United States, United Kingdom, and Spain. Use of #radonc expanded from 23 countries in 2014 to 116 in 2019. The average annual growth rate in #radonc users and tweets was 70.5% and 69.2%, respectively. The annual growth rate of #radonc users was significantly higher than for all Twitter users (p=0.004). While doctors were the source of 46.9% of all tweets, research and government organizations had annual increases in tweet volume of 84.6% and 211.4%, respectively. From 2014 to 2016, promotion of the radiation oncology community was the most active theme, though this dropped to 7th in 2017-2019 as discussion increased regarding aspects of radiation and treated disease sites. Conclusion Use of #radonc has grown rapidly into a global community. Focused discussion related to radiation oncology has outpaced the growth of general Twitter use, both among physicians and non-physicians. #radonc has grown into a self-sustaining community. Further research is necessary to define the risks and benefits of social media in medicine and to determine whether it adds value to oncology practice

Assessing COVID-19 Health Information on Google Using the Quality Evaluation Scoring Tool (QUEST): Cross-sectional and Readability Analysis

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic spurred an increase in online information regarding disease spread and symptomatology. Objective: Our purpose is to systematically assess the quality and readability of articles resulting from frequently Google-searched COVID-19 terms in the United States. Methods: We used Google Trends to determine the 25 most commonly searched health-related phrases between February 29 and April 30, 2020. The first 30 search results for each term were collected, and articles were analyzed using the Quality Evaluation Scoring Tool (QUEST). Three raters scored each article in authorship, attribution, conflict of interest, currency, complementarity, and tone. A readability analysis was conducted. Results: Exactly 709 articles were screened, and 195 fulfilled inclusion criteria. The mean article score was 18.4 (SD 2.6) of 28, with 7% (14/189) scoring in the top quartile. National news outlets published the largest share (70/189, 36%) of articles. Peer-reviewed journals attained the highest average QUEST score compared to national/regional news outlets, national/state government sites, and global health organizations (all P\u3c.05). The average reading level was 11.7 (SD 1.9, range 5.4-16.9). Only 3 (1.6%) articles were written at the recommended sixth grade level. Conclusions: COVID-19-related articles are vastly varied in their attributes and levels of bias, and would benefit from revisions for increased readability

What patients see online: assessing the online identities of Pennsylvania dermatologists

Introduction: Patients use the internet to search for health-related information. We sought to characterize the information that patients find when searching for dermatologists on Google. Methods: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician Comparable Downloadable File was utilized to identify all Medicare-participating dermatologists practicing in Pennsylvania (PA). A custom Google-based search engine was used to search each dermatologist. Up to the top 10 results for each physician were then sorted into: (1) physician, hospital, or healthcare system, (2) third-party, (3) social media, (4) academic journal articles, or (5) other. Results: Within the CMS, 519 health care providers (53.9% male, 46.1% female) self-identified as dermatologists practicing in PA. At least one search result was obtained for each physician (4,963 total search results). About 30.6% (1,519) search results were hospital, health system, or physician-controlled websites, and 26.6% (1,318) were third-party websites (1,318; 26.6%). Social media websites accounted for 601 (12.1%) hits whereas peer-reviewed academic journal websites generated 135 (2.7%) results. One-way chi-square analysis showed domains were not randomly distributed across the five categories (P<0.0001). Conclusion: Dermatologists should be better aware of their digital presence and the strategies to better control their online identity