Aishu Ramamurthi1, Harsh Patel2, Dhivya R Srinivasa2. 1. Medical College of Wisconsin, 8701 W Watertown Plank Rd, Wauwatosa, WI, 53226, USA. airamamurthi@mcw.edu. 2. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Cedars Sinai, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The internet has revolutionized health information delivery. With instantaneous and widespread access to electronic sources, patients have countless options with regard to where and how they acquire medical information. Although this enables patients to feel informed, uncontextualized misinformation can derail patients as much as accurate information can empower them. To better understand the sources of information available, a Google Trends analysis was performed. METHODS: Search volume data were collected for the terms "ALCL," "textured implants," "Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma," "breast implant illness," and "breast implant cancer." Data were collected for 1- and 5-year search periods ending on May 1, 2020. Peaks were correlated to relevant news articles or FDA statements. RESULTS: Results uncovered that news platforms like the New York Times (NYT) and The Guardian had greater public visibility when compared to official announcements through the FDA or pharmaceutical companies. During these peaks in public interest, search results on Google were dominated by information from media sources, highlighting a weakness in the general public's access to credible online health information. CONCLUSIONS: Online search volume and regional data obtained from Google Trends can serve to strategize timely and targeted dissemination of important medical announcements to the public. Evidence from this study reveals pitfalls of the current model for dissemination of information and provides valuable, actionable methods for improved patient outreach for future communications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
INTRODUCTION: The internet has revolutionized health information delivery. With instantaneous and widespread access to electronic sources, patients have countless options with regard to where and how they acquire medical information. Although this enables patients to feel informed, uncontextualized misinformation can derail patients as much as accurate information can empower them. To better understand the sources of information available, a Google Trends analysis was performed. METHODS: Search volume data were collected for the terms "ALCL," "textured implants," "Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma," "breast implant illness," and "breast implant cancer." Data were collected for 1- and 5-year search periods ending on May 1, 2020. Peaks were correlated to relevant news articles or FDA statements. RESULTS: Results uncovered that news platforms like the New York Times (NYT) and The Guardian had greater public visibility when compared to official announcements through the FDA or pharmaceutical companies. During these peaks in public interest, search results on Google were dominated by information from media sources, highlighting a weakness in the general public's access to credible online health information. CONCLUSIONS: Online search volume and regional data obtained from Google Trends can serve to strategize timely and targeted dissemination of important medical announcements to the public. Evidence from this study reveals pitfalls of the current model for dissemination of information and provides valuable, actionable methods for improved patient outreach for future communications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Authors: Sameer S Jejurikar; Jason M Rovak; William M Kuzon; Kevin C Chung; Sandra V Kotsis; Paul S Cederna Journal: Ann Plast Surg Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 1.539
Authors: Joseph A Diaz; Rebecca A Griffith; James J Ng; Steven E Reinert; Peter D Friedmann; Anne W Moulton Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Sudhakar V Nuti; Brian Wayda; Isuru Ranasinghe; Sisi Wang; Rachel P Dreyer; Serene I Chen; Karthik Murugiah Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-10-22 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Isabelle Boutron; Romana Haneef; Amélie Yavchitz; Gabriel Baron; John Novack; Ivan Oransky; Gary Schwitzer; Philippe Ravaud Journal: BMC Med Date: 2019-06-04 Impact factor: 8.775