Modern Internet Search Analytics and Osseointegration: What are Patients Asking and Reading Online?

INTRODUCTION

Clinicians and patients have unprecedented easy access to masses of information. The ability to search a term so quickly and effortlessly has enabled patients to become better informed. Given the volume of information now available, modern search analytics attempt to provide the best sources of information. Google Web Search continues to be the most used search engine for those wishing to learn more about medical conditions; it accounts for 84% of computer internet searches and 96% of mobile searches.^1,2 In 2015, Google introduced a machine learning algorithm, RankBrain, to improve search queries and provide individual suggestions.³ To this was added a natural language processing system [Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers ((BERT)] with the result being better individualised information for Google users.

Limb loss from amputation is a life altering challenge. Lower limb prosthetics have advanced with improvements in the materials and fit of the limb to the prosthetic socket. However, despite this, the interface between the limb and prothesis continues to be a source of discomfort with issues of sweating, skin irritation, and its impact on the speed of walking being the most common issues reported.⁴ Consequently, alternative techniques have been developed to improve this interface, such as osseointegration (OI), from which there is a direct connection between living bone and the prosthesis. Osseointegration is used in several specialities including dentistry, maxillofacial surgery, bone-anchored hearing aids as well as for prosthetic limbs. Whilst OI has been performed for the last 30 years, improvements in technology and surgical techniques have led to more recent improvements in patient outcomes and quality of life.^5,6 This improvement in outcomes has been mirrored by the large increase in the number of publications in the last 10 years.⁷

In the last 20 years, the number of health-related searches has gone from approximately 6.75 million per day to over one billion, accounting for 7% of all Google daily searches.^8,9 Nearly, two-thirds of orthopaedic patients use the internet to search for orthopaedic information.¹⁰ As outcomes from OI have improved, there have been parallel changes in patient acceptability and accessibility. This has produced an increase in the number of people seeking to know more. The sources and quality of this information are important to enable patients to make informed decisions and understand the benefits as well as the risks and complications. The purpose of this study was to better understand the most frequent questions asked regarding OI from modern search analytics, what sources are being used to inform patients, and the quality of information received.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The search terms related to OI were entered into Google Web Search in a cleanly installed browser using the web search engine Chrome. Ten search terms were utilised (Table 1). Nine of the search terms generated 50 unique results per search term, whilst the tenth search term did not generate relevant search results pertaining to the topic. The ‘People also ask’ list was refreshed to generate 50 queries per search term. If duplications occurred, the list was refreshed to have 50 original search results per each search term.

The list of ‘People also ask’ was generated and analysed. This information was extracted using a web scraper programme (Webscraper, IO). These questions were then analysed according to a previously described classification system by Rothwell (Table 2).^11,12 The websites were subcategorised into six groups. These groups were commercial, academic, medical practice, single surgeon or personal accounts, government, and social media. Examples of a commercial website include those involved in profit making without patient care. The academic websites were university affiliated websites with a strong academic focus. The medical practice websites consisted of groups of practitioners without a particular academic affiliation. The single surgeon consisted of a personal promotion website and did not include a surgeon with an affiliated practice or on an academic website grouping. The government websites were those run by the government such as the National Institute for Health in the United States of America. Social media websites consisted of platforms such as forums, or social media personal accounts where information was disseminated. The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) rating scores websites on four criteria using agreed definitions (Table 3).¹³

Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS version 27, IBM Corp. (2020) Armonk, NY.

The primary author (EPM) collected the list of questions and websites of ‘People also ask’. Two reviewers then used the Rothwell classification to categorise the questions by topic and websites by category. Inter-observer reliability analysis was performed with an agreement of 0.96 for question topics and 0.82 for JAMA total score. The websites were scored using the JAMA Benchmarking system. Nominal data was analysed using the Chi-square test whilst the Student’s t-test was utilised for comparison of the JAMA benchmark scores. Ethical approval was not sought for this research project and there was no funding available.

RESULTS

The 10 search terms generated 454 questions and referenced 408 websites. There were four questions that were generated seven times and two websites that were referenced eight times (Tables 4 and 5).

DISCUSSION

The most commonly asked questions about OI were what is an OI prosthetic, how long does the surgery last, can you shower with a prosthesis and what is the cost? Whilst the most commonly referenced websites were from healthcare, nearly two-thirds (64.1%) of websites had no or insufficient information on authorship, attribution, disclosure, and currency (JAMA score 0 or 1). Interestingly, social media websites are the most main source of information on OI. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine what patients are searching for related to OI and from what sources the information is obtained.

Approximately, 150,000 people undergo a lower extremity amputation in the United States each year.¹⁴ Use of a prosthesis has been shown to improve quality of life; however, issues from the interface between the limb and the prosthesis continue to pose a problem. Some studies have shown higher quality of life scores with OI prostheses than conventional socket-suspended prostheses (SSP).¹⁵ This has led to more people seeking to know more about OI; the top questions asked were an explanation of OI, the nature of OI surgery, the cost, and the practicalities of using the prosthesis (can you shower, can you run?). Costs vary amongst health systems and are difficult to calculate accurately due to the multiple facets involved in OI (surgical, prosthetic, rehabilitation, and medical care). A study by Black et al. of 27 patients in the United States estimated that the median preoperative costs were $6216, operative costs of $48,247, and yearly postoperative costs of $2626, provided no complications or preimplantation surgical revision occurred.⁵ A study from Australia found the OI prosthesis to be on average 21% more than SSPs. However, the quality adjusted life years (QALYs) increased by 17% in those with an OI prosthesis. Osseointegration prostheses were also found to be cost-effective in 88% of participants in the study and a cost-saving in 19%.¹⁶ Whilst complications and implant survival are the focus of many clinical studies, none of the top 10 questions asked related to the potential complications or the main issues faced with such prostheses. Skin problems and skin infections are the most common complications with OI with rates of 28–55% reported in a systematic review by van Eck and McGough.¹⁷ However, surgical techniques have improved with a focus on removing redundant skin, having a snug muscular skin seal at the skin-implant interface.¹⁸ A large follow-up study of 485 patients showed 59 (12.2%) required at least one operative intervention for infection.¹⁹

Whilst the internet has greatly improved the access for patients seeking information on OI, the quality of this information is worryingly poor. Social media platforms are how many people access their information now and there are issues around the quality and misinformation these may provide. Social media usage amongst the US population is high with at least 78% of the population having at least one social media account.²⁰ Patient autonomy is important in decision-making and accurate information is key to this process. The number of health information-related searches has increased to almost one billion per day.⁹ The patient–physician interaction is important and part of the consent process involves trust.²¹ The position statement on the code of conduct within social media for organisations of the medical profession advises how to interact on this platform and suggests separating personal and professional accounts.²¹

Social media has the potential to provide an excellent forum for debate. However, the lack of governance around contributors, misrepresentation of parties’ credentials, and the potential for misuse exist. This is a difficult forum to regulate. Patients actively seek out information online; trustworthy information that is accessible online is of value to patients who are vulnerable. The same standards of medical ethics need to be held online as in person when providing information. A study by Duymuş et al. of 321 Turkish orthopaedic surgeons found that surgeons operating in private practice were more likely to communicate with their patients by e-mail, cross-platform messaging services or private website forums.²² Orthopaedic surgeons can improve engagement with their social media platforms by including hashtags such as ‘#ortho’. A study of 25 influential Instagram accounts with 250 Instagram posts found that the most visited posts were those which evoked an emotional response or involved questions and answers.²³ Similarly, the findings of this study point to forums for posting questions being popular but the quality of information on these forums is uncertain.

Gaps exist in terms of monitoring the recent explosion of content on social media platforms.²⁴ The JAMA benchmark is the best marker for information on the internet currently.¹³ A systematic review by Chen et al. attempted to evaluate and quantify the impact of internet-based searches. There are three recognised types of users: health institutions, health researchers or professionals, and the general public. It highlighted 10 types of social media use, whereas the JAMA benchmark has four sub-categorisations which are applied to all websites. Twitter was the most used platform for individual illnesses overall. However, this study on OI found more patients engaged on social media discussion forums. Social media posts can provide insight into the cognitive and behavioural responses in relation to OI procedures and the process. Health information can be disseminated quickly as compared with traditional routes of in-office appointments. Health institutions often have testimonials, links and YouTube videos to increase patient awareness. That said, the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted both the impact of misinformation and the need for rapid dissemination of correct information.²⁵ Studies during previous outbreaks such as measles have highlighted the importance of physicians providing transparent information about vaccinations and increasing engagement with public health processes. Younger patients engage with different social media platforms in comparison to older patients.²⁶ Younger patients were more likely to use YouTube instead of using government sponsored or academic platforms. Hashtags may be a way to engage emotionally with this demographic as proven by other studies.²³ The needs of all demographic sectors must be addressed. Our study highlights the diverse nature of information sources patients utilise and the top questions they research. Academic institutions can utilise this to tailor the information which is currently available whilst considering patients’ concerns. At our institution, we have designed our website to include basic information, case examples, testimonials, social media feed, and scholarly publications to best address patient education.

This study is not without limitations. Only one search engine was utilised; this design is replicated in other studies as Google searches account for over 85% of all searches.²⁰ With our searches performed using Google, other search engines may generate different results. This study is not able to evaluate the impact of social media on patient choices with respect to their health intervention. It is acknowledged that the JAMA benchmark is the best available tool currently available. However, some of the social media platforms will score poorly on this tool despite addressing some of the patients fears. The lack of regulation of social media usage and provision of information by non-physician parties creates challenges in addressing the wider field.

Another limitation is that the web searches were performed in January 2023 and the information on the web is updating constantly. Given that social media provided such a high proportion of available information, searches performed on each platform may provide very different themes. An investigation into social media specifically may be warranted in a future study of internet information of OI. A major strength of this study is the recognition that a high proportion of information on OI comes from personal sources such as social media, potentially creating a bias away from scientifically evaluated data towards that of personal experiences by highly visible individuals on the internet. This indicates that patients need more accessible information than is currently provided on professional websites.

Osseointegration offers an alternative option to the traditional socket suspension prosthesis. Patients are seeking more information as an increasing evidence base for its use grows. Understanding the types of questions patients ask on the internet about OI can inform clinicians. The most commonly asked questions about OI relate to technical details, specific activities and cost. Our study found that social media websites were the main source of patient information. There is a need for orthopaedic websites and organisations to adapt to better inform patients.

ORCID

Gerard A Sheridan https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0970-3274

Brian J Page https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8636-8249

Michael D Greenstein https://orcid.org/0009-0001-3078-4374

REFERENCES

1. Statistica. Worldwide desktop market share of leading search engines from January 2015 to January 2023. February 2023. Available from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/216573/worldwide-market-share-of-search-engines/.

2. Statcounter. GlobalStats. Mobile Search Engine Market Share Worldwide. February 2023. Available from: https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share/mobile/worldwide.

3. Davies D. A complete guide to the Google RankBrain algorithm. Search Engine J 2020. Available from: https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-algorithm-history/rankbrain/.

4. Hagberg K, Brånemark R. Consequences of non-vascular trans-femoral amputation: A survey of quality of life, prosthetic use and problems. Prosthet Orthot Int 2001;25(3):186–194. DOI: 10.1080/03093640108726601.

5. Black GG, Jung W, Wu X, et al. A cost-benefit analysis of osseointegrated prostheses for lower limb amputees in the US Health Care System. Ann Plast Surg 2022;88(3 Suppl 3):S224–S228. DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000003183.

6. Matthews DJ, Arastu M, Uden M, et al. UK trial of the osseointegrated prosthesis for the rehabilitation for amputees: 1995–2018. Prosthet Orthot Int 2019;43(1):112–122. DOI: 10.1177/0309364618791616.

7. PubMed. National Library of Medicine. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=orthopaedics+osseointegration+%5Btitle%2Fabstract%5D&sort=date&size=100.

8. Eysenbach G, Kohler CH. What is the prevalence of health-related searches on the World Wide Web? Qualitative and quantitative analysis of search engine queries on the internet. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2003;2003:225–229. PMID: 14728167.

9. Murphy M. Dr Google will see you now: Search giants wants to cash in on your medical queries. The Telegraph. 2019. Available from: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/03/10/google-sifting-one-billion-health-questions-day/.

10. Burrus MT, Werner BC, Starman JS, et al. Patient perceptions and current trends in internet use by orthopedic outpatients. HSS J 2017;13(3):271–275. DOI: 10.1007/s11420-017-9568-2.

11. Kanthawala S, Vermeesch A, Given B, et al. Answers to health questions: Internet search results versus online health community responses. J Med Internet Res 2016;18(4):e95. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.5369.

12. Rothwell J. Mixed company: Communicating in small groups and teams. 10th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press (OUP); 2006.

13. Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: Caveant lector et viewor – Let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA 1997 16;277(15):1244–1245. PMID: 9103351.

14. Dillingham TR, Pezzin LE, Shore AD. Reamputation, mortality, and health care costs among persons with dysvascular lower-limb amputations. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005;86(3):480–486. DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2004.06.072.

15. Haggstrom EE, Hansson E, Hagberg K. Comparison of prosthetic costs and service between osseointegrated and conventional suspended transfemoral prostheses. Prosthet Orthot Int 2013;37(2):152–160. DOI: 10.1177/0309364612454160.

16. Frossard LA, Merlo G, Burkett B, et al. Cost-effectiveness of bone-anchored prostheses using osseointegrated fixation: Myth or reality? Prosthet Orthot Int 2018;42(3):318–327. DOI: 10.1177/0309364617740239.

17. van Eck CF, McGough RL. Clinical outcome of osseointegrated prostheses for lower extremity amputations: A systematic review of the literature. Current Orthopaedic Practice 26(4):349–357. DOI: 10.1097/BCO.0000000000000248.

18. Vernice NA, Askinas CA, Black GG, et al. Osseointegration for lower-extremity amputees: Operative considerations from the plastic surgeon’s perspective. JBJS Rev 2022;10(11):e22.00125. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.RVW.22.00125.

19. Hoellwarth JS, Tetsworth K, Oomatia A, et al. Association Between Osseointegration of Lower Extremity Amputation and Mortality Among Adults. JAMA Netw Open 2022;5(10):e2235074. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.35074.

20. Pew Research Center. Social Media Fact sheet. April 2021. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/social-media/.

21. Logghe HJ, Boeck MA, Gusani NJ, et al. Best practices for surgeons’ social media use: Statement of the Resident and Associate Society of the American College of Surgeons. J Am Coll Surg 2018;226(3):317–327. DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2017.11.022.

22. Duymuş TM, Karadeniz H, Şükür E, et al. Social media and Internet usage of orthopaedic surgeons. J Clin Orthop Trauma 2017;8(1):25–30. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcot.2016.10.007.

23. Abbas MJ, Khalil LS, Haikal A, et al. Eliciting emotion and action increases social media engagement: an analysis of influential orthopaedic surgeons. Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil 2021;3(5):e1301–e1308. Published on 21 July 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.asmr.2021.05.011.

24. Gesser-Edelsburg A, Diamant A, Hijazi R, et al. Correcting misinformation by health organizations during measles outbreaks: A controlled experiment. PLoS One 2018;13(12):e0209505. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209505.

25. Chen J, Wang Y. Social Media Use for Health Purposes: Systematic Review. J Med Internet Res 2021;23(5):e17917. Published on 12 May 2021. DOI: 10.2196/17917.

26. Lupton D. Young People’s Use of Digital Health Technologies in the Global North: Narrative Review. J Med Internet Res 2021;23(1):e18286. DOI: 10.2196/18286.