L N Fuzzell1, M J Richards2, L Fraenkel3, S L Stark4, M C Politi2. 1. School of Medicine, Department of Surgery, Division of Public Health Sciences, Washington University in St. Louis, 660 S. Euclid Ave, Campus Box 8100, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA. Lindzfuzz@me.com. 2. School of Medicine, Department of Surgery, Division of Public Health Sciences, Washington University in St. Louis, 660 S. Euclid Ave, Campus Box 8100, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA. 3. School of Medicine, Department of Rheumatology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA. 4. School of Medicine, Department of Occupational Therapy, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Abstract
Despite its effectiveness, bisphosphonate use for osteoporosis is low. We assessed bisphosphonate information on the internet and found the most commonly listed benefits/risks were bone density loss, gastrointestinal issues, and jaw necrosis, that risk quantification was rare, and information quality varied. Findings underscore the importance of clinical communication about bisphosphonates. INTRODUCTION: The US Preventative Services Task Force recommends osteoporosis screening and treatment with bisphosphonates in high-risk populations. However, bisphosphonate use among individuals with osteoporosis remains low. The content and quality of information from outside sources may influence individuals' bisphosphonate decisions. Therefore, we sought to assess the content and quality of osteoporosis treatment information available to the public by conducting an internet search and coding available bisphosphonate information. METHODS: Eleven search terms about osteoporosis and bisphosphonates were entered into four search engines. Two raters assessed websites for information about bisphosphonates, whether and how benefits and side effects were described and quantified, contraindications, and dosing instructions. Coders also assessed website interface and slant/balance of information. RESULTS: One thousand four hundred seventy-three websites were identified. Two hundred twenty-seven websites met inclusion criteria and were coded. The most common bisphosphonate benefit described was prevention of bone density loss (77.1% of websites). The most common side effects described were gastrointestinal problems (66.1%) and jaw osteonecrosis (58.6%). Most websites did not quantify bisphosphonate benefits (78.0%) or side effects (82.4%). Complementary/integrative health websites (p < .001) and pharmaceutical litigation websites (p < .001) were more often slanted against taking bisphosphonates, compared to all websites coded. General medical knowledge websites were more balanced than other websites (p = .023). CONCLUSIONS: The quality of bisphosphonate information on the internet varies substantially. Providers counseling patients about osteoporosis treatment should inquire about patients' baseline bisphosphonate knowledge. Providers can complement accurate information and address potential bisphosphonate misconceptions.
Despite its effectiveness, bisphosphonate use for osteoporosis is low. We assessed bisphosphonate information on the internet and found the most commonly listed benefits/risks were bone density loss, gastrointestinal issues, and jaw necrosis, that risk quantification was rare, and information quality varied. Findings underscore the importance of clinical communication about bisphosphonates. INTRODUCTION: The US Preventative Services Task Force recommends osteoporosis screening and treatment with bisphosphonates in high-risk populations. However, bisphosphonate use among individuals with osteoporosis remains low. The content and quality of information from outside sources may influence individuals' bisphosphonate decisions. Therefore, we sought to assess the content and quality of osteoporosis treatment information available to the public by conducting an internet search and coding available bisphosphonate information. METHODS: Eleven search terms about osteoporosis and bisphosphonates were entered into four search engines. Two raters assessed websites for information about bisphosphonates, whether and how benefits and side effects were described and quantified, contraindications, and dosing instructions. Coders also assessed website interface and slant/balance of information. RESULTS: One thousand four hundred seventy-three websites were identified. Two hundred twenty-seven websites met inclusion criteria and were coded. The most common bisphosphonate benefit described was prevention of bone density loss (77.1% of websites). The most common side effects described were gastrointestinal problems (66.1%) and jaw osteonecrosis (58.6%). Most websites did not quantify bisphosphonate benefits (78.0%) or side effects (82.4%). Complementary/integrative health websites (p < .001) and pharmaceutical litigation websites (p < .001) were more often slanted against taking bisphosphonates, compared to all websites coded. General medical knowledge websites were more balanced than other websites (p = .023). CONCLUSIONS: The quality of bisphosphonate information on the internet varies substantially. Providers counseling patients about osteoporosis treatment should inquire about patients' baseline bisphosphonate knowledge. Providers can complement accurate information and address potential bisphosphonate misconceptions.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bisphosphonates; Health communication; Online information; Osteoporosis
Authors: Susan J Curry; Alex H Krist; Douglas K Owens; Michael J Barry; Aaron B Caughey; Karina W Davidson; Chyke A Doubeni; John W Epling; Alex R Kemper; Martha Kubik; C Seth Landefeld; Carol M Mangione; Maureen G Phipps; Michael Pignone; Michael Silverstein; Melissa A Simon; Chien-Wen Tseng; John B Wong Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-06-26 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Amir Qaseem; Mary Ann Forciea; Robert M McLean; Thomas D Denberg; Michael J Barry; Molly Cooke; Nick Fitterman; Russell P Harris; Linda L Humphrey; Devan Kansagara; Robert M McLean; Tanveer P Mir; Holger J Schünemann Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2017-05-09 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Sundeep Khosla; David Burr; Jane Cauley; David W Dempster; Peter R Ebeling; Dieter Felsenberg; Robert F Gagel; Vincente Gilsanz; Theresa Guise; Sreenivas Koka; Laurie K McCauley; Joan McGowan; Marc D McKee; Suresh Mohla; David G Pendrys; Lawrence G Raisz; Salvatore L Ruggiero; David M Shafer; Lillian Shum; Stuart L Silverman; Catherine H Van Poznak; Nelson Watts; Sook-Bin Woo; Elizabeth Shane Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Daniel J Amante; Timothy P Hogan; Sherry L Pagoto; Thomas M English; Kate L Lapane Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2015-04-29 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Natalie Joseph-Williams; Robert Newcombe; Mary Politi; Marie-Anne Durand; Stephanie Sivell; Dawn Stacey; Annette O'Connor; Robert J Volk; Adrian Edwards; Carol Bennett; Michael Pignone; Richard Thomson; Glyn Elwyn Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2013-08-20 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Daniel H Solomon; Stephen S Johnston; Natalie N Boytsov; Donna McMorrow; Joseph M Lane; Kelly D Krohn Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Meghan K Wally; Thomas Bemenderfer; R Randall McKnight; Jacob D Gorbaty; Kyle Jeray; Rachel B Seymour; Madhav A Karunakar Journal: J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev Date: 2021-02-12
Authors: Lindsay N Fuzzell; Liana Fraenkel; Susan L Stark; Sarabjeet S Seehra; Christine Nelson; Audrey Keleman; Mary C Politi Journal: Womens Health Rep (New Rochelle) Date: 2020-04-27
Authors: Maria A Lopez-Olivo; Jude K A des Bordes; Maha N Syed; Ahmed Alemam; Abhinav Dodeja; Noha Abdel-Wahab; Maria E Suarez-Almazor Journal: Arch Osteoporos Date: 2021-02-10 Impact factor: 2.617