An online readability analysis of pathology-related patient education articles: an opportunity for pathologists to educate patients

Bridging the gap: Evaluating ChatGPT-generated, personalized, patient-centered prostate biopsy reports

OBJECTIVE

The highly specialized language used in prostate biopsy pathology reports coupled with low rates of health literacy leave some patients unable to comprehend their medical information. Patients' use of online search engines can lead to misinterpretation of results and emotional distress. Artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT (OpenAI) could simplify complex texts and help patients. This study evaluates patient-centered prostate biopsy reports generated by ChatGPT.

METHODS

Thirty-five self-generated prostate biopsy reports were synthesized using National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Each report was entered into ChatGPT, version 4, with the same instructions, and the explanations were evaluated by 5 urologists and 5 pathologists.

RESULTS

Respondents rated the AI-generated reports as mostly accurate and complete. All but 1 report was rated complete and grammatically correct by the majority of physicians. Pathologists did not rate any reports as having severe potential for harm, but 1 or more urologists rated severe concern in 20% of the reports. For 80% of the reports, all 5 pathologists felt comfortable sharing them with a patient or another clinician, but all 5 urologists reached the same consensus for only 40% of reports. Although every report required edits, all physicians agreed that they could modify the ChatGPT report faster than they could write an original report.

CONCLUSIONS

ChatGPT can save physicians substantial time by generating patient-centered reports appropriate for patient and physician audiences with low potential to cause harm. Surveyed physicians have confidence in the overall utility of ChatGPT, supporting further investigation of how AI could be integrated into physicians' workflows.

Improving Patient Understanding and Outcomes in Lung Cancer Using an Animated Patient's Guide with Visual Formats of Learning

Lung cancer patient education resources that address barriers to health literacy, improve understanding, and demonstrate improved patient outcomes are limited. Our study aim was to evaluate and report on learner knowledge improvement and intent to implement behavior change, and validate the benefits of the You and Lung Cancer website and YouTube resources. Our study occurred from November 2017 to December 2023. We evaluated audience reach (visit sessions, unique visitors, country origins, page views) and calculated top views by media type (animations, expert videos, patient videos). We assessed the impact and commitment to change through learner surveys (areas of interest, intention to modify behaviors, and intention to discuss disease management with providers) and tested the knowledge of learners pre- and post-reviewing of website content. Our program reached 794,203 views globally; 467,546 were unique visitors; and 243,124 (51%) were unique visitors from the USA. Of US visitors, 46% identified as lung cancer patients. These were patients in treatment (38%), survivors (8%), family members or caregivers (21%), and healthcare providers (14%) with other audiences unspecified (19%). Three areas of highest learner importance were the animations "Understanding Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer" (180,591), "Staging of Lung Cancer" (144,238), and "Treatment and Management of Small Cell Lung Cancer" (49,244). Our study confirmed areas of importance to lung cancer patients and suggests that visual formats of learning, such as animations, can mitigate health literacy barriers and help improve patient understanding and outcomes. Exporting this format of learning to other cancers has the potential to benefit patients and improve health outcomes.

Forgotten clientele: A systematic review of patient-centered pathology reports

CONTEXT

Patient portals, designed to give ready access to medical records, have led to important improvements in patient care. However, there is a downside: much of the information available on portals is not designed for lay people. Pathology reports are no exception. Access to complex reports often leaves patients confused, concerned and stressed. We conducted a systematic review to explore recommendations and guidelines designed to promote a patient centered approach to pathology reporting.

DESIGN

In consultation with a research librarian, a search strategy was developed to identify literature regarding patient-centered pathology reports (PCPR). Terms such as "pathology reports," "patient-centered," and "lay-terms" were used. The PubMed, Embase and Scopus databases were searched during the first quarter of 2023. Studies were included if they were original research and in English, without date restrictions.

RESULTS

Of 1,053 articles identified, 17 underwent a full-text review. Only 5 studies (≈0.5%) met eligibility criteria: two randomized trials; two qualitative studies; a patient survey of perceived utility of potential interventions. A major theme that emerged from the patient survey/qualitative studies is the need for pathology reports to be in simple, non-medical language. Major themes of the quantitative studies were that patients preferred PCPRs, and patients who received PCPRs knew and recalled their cancer stage/grade better than the control group.

CONCLUSION

Pathology reports play a vital role in the decision-making process for patient care. Yet, they are beyond the comprehension of most patients. No framework or guidelines exist for generating reports that deploy accessible language. PCPRs should be a focus of future interventions to improve patient care.

Use of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots in Interpretation of Pathology Reports

Importance

Anatomic pathology reports are an essential part of health care, containing vital diagnostic and prognostic information. Currently, most patients have access to their test results online. However, the reports are complex and are generally incomprehensible to laypeople. Artificial intelligence chatbots could potentially simplify pathology reports.

Objective

To evaluate the ability of large language model chatbots to accurately explain pathology reports to patients.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study used 1134 pathology reports from January 1, 2018, to May 31, 2023, from a multispecialty hospital in Brooklyn, New York. A new chat was started for each report, and both chatbots (Bard [Google Inc], hereinafter chatbot 1; GPT-4 [OpenAI], hereinafter chatbot 2) were asked in sequential prompts to explain the reports in simple terms and identify key information. Chatbot responses were generated between June 1 and August 31, 2023. The mean readability scores of the original and simplified reports were compared. Two reviewers independently screened and flagged reports with potential errors. Three pathologists reviewed the flagged reports and categorized them as medically correct, partially medically correct, or medically incorrect; they also recorded any instances of hallucinations.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Outcomes included improved mean readability scores and a medically accurate interpretation.

Results

For the 1134 reports included, the Flesch-Kincaid grade level decreased from a mean of 13.19 (95% CI, 12.98-13.41) to 8.17 (95% CI, 8.08-8.25; t = 45.29; P < .001) by chatbot 1 and 7.45 (95% CI, 7.35-7.54; t = 49.69; P < .001) by chatbot 2. The Flesch Reading Ease score was increased from a mean of 10.32 (95% CI, 8.69-11.96) to 61.32 (95% CI, 60.80-61.84; t = -63.19; P < .001) by chatbot 1 and 70.80 (95% CI, 70.32-71.28; t = -74.61; P < .001) by chatbot 2. Chatbot 1 interpreted 993 reports (87.57%) correctly, 102 (8.99%) partially correctly, and 39 (3.44%) incorrectly; chatbot 2 interpreted 1105 reports (97.44%) correctly, 24 (2.12%) partially correctly, and 5 (0.44%) incorrectly. Chatbot 1 had 32 instances of hallucinations (2.82%), while chatbot 2 had 3 (0.26%).

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that artificial intelligence chatbots were able to simplify pathology reports. However, some inaccuracies and hallucinations occurred. Simplified reports should be reviewed by clinicians before distribution to patients.

Helping Patients Understand Pancreatic Cancer Using Animated Pancreas Patient Education With Visual Formats of Learning

OBJECTIVES

Patient education and resources that address barriers to health literacy to improve understanding in pancreatic cancer are limited. We evaluated the impact and outcomes benefits of Animated Pancreas Patient (APP) cancer educational modules (APP website and YouTube).

METHODS

A retrospective study of APP metrics and utilization data from September 2013 to February 2021 was conducted. We evaluated audience reach and calculated top views by media type (animation/expert video/patient video/slideshow) and top retention videos from the modules.

RESULTS

During the study period, APP had 4,551,079 views worldwide of which 2,757,064 unique visitors or 60% were from the United States. Of these, 54% were patients, 17% were family members or caregivers, 16% were health care providers, and 13% were other. The most popular topic viewed among the animations was "Understanding Clinical Trials" (n = 182,217), and the most common expert video viewed was "What are the different stages of pancreatic cancer?" (n = 15,357).

CONCLUSIONS

Pancreatic cancer patient education using APP's visual formats of learning demonstrated a wide reach and had a significant impact on improved understanding among patients, families, and caregivers. Continued efforts should be made to provide patient resources that address health literacy, better quality of life and improved health outcomes in pancreatic cancer.

The impact of curated educational videos on pathology health literacy for patients with a pancreatic, colorectal, or prostate cancer diagnosis

Despite patients having increased access to their own electronic health record (EHR) in recent times, patients are often still not considered a primary audience of pathology reports. An alternative to in-person patient education is the use of multimedia programming to enhance health literacy. Curated video presentations designed to explain diagnosis-specific pathology terms were reviewed by a board-certified pathologist and oncologist team and then shown to patients with a primary diagnosis of either pancreatic, colorectal, or prostate cancer in-clinic; these patients then completed a secure electronic survey immediately afterwards. Seventy patients were surveyed, with 91% agreeing or strongly agreeing that the video they watched increased their understanding of the medical terms used in their pathology reports, with a corresponding average Likert score (ALS) of 4.21 (SD = 0.77, CI = ± 0.18). Furthermore, 95% agreed or strongly agreed that the video they watched both enhanced their understanding of the role of the pathologist in diagnosing cancer (ALS = 4.27; SD = 0.65, CI = ± 0.15) and reported they found the video useful (ALS = 4.27; SD = 0.53, CI = ± 0.13). Curated videos such as those utilized in this study have the potential to increase patient health literacy and inform patients of the multidisciplinary nature of cancer diagnosis.

Improving patient understanding and outcomes in myelodysplastic syndromes - An animated patient guide to MDS with visual formats of learning

Objectives

Patient education resources that address barriers to health literacy to improve understanding and outcomes in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) are limited. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact and outcomes benefits of An Animated Patient's Guide to Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS) cancer educational modules (which includes the ‘You and MDS’ website and YouTube hosted resources) related to MDS education, awareness, understanding and health outcomes.

Methods

This was a retrospective study of learner feedback, metrics, and utilization data from July 2018 to August 2021. We evaluated audience reach (number of visit sessions, unique visitors, page views) and calculated top views by media type (animation, expert video, patient video, and slide show) and top retention videos from the modules. We also assessed the educational impact and utilization through learner feedback surveys.

Results

During the study period, ‘You and MDS’ had 233,743 views worldwide of which 104,214 were unique visitors and 78,161 (or 76% unique visitors) were from the United States. Of these, 61% were patients; 29% family members or caregivers; 5% were healthcare providers and 5% represented other groups. Most popular topics viewed among the animations were “Understanding Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS)” (40,219 views), “Managing and Treating MDS” (19,240 views), “Understanding Erythropoiesis” (17,564 views.) The most popular expert videos viewed were “What is iron overload, and how it is treated?” (20,310 views), “How serious a cancer is MDS? What is the prognosis for MDS?” (8,327 views), “What is MDS?” (3,157 views). Of participants who completed the online feedback survey, ≥ 95% reported improved knowledge gains and commitments to change.

Conclusions

MDS patients using ‘You and MDS - An Animated Patient's Guide to MDS’ and its visual formats of learning represented a wide U.S. and global learner audience. This MDS educational resource had a significant impact on improved understanding among patients, families, and caregivers. Continued efforts should be made to provide patient-effective resources that address health literacy, improve patient understanding, and address educational needs that respond to the concerns of patients to achieve better quality of life and improved health outcomes in MDS.

Communicating Certainty in Pathology Reports: Interpretation Differences Among Staff Pathologists, Clinicians, and Residents in a Multicenter Study

CONTEXT.—

Pathology reports are the main modality in which results are communicated to other physicians. For various reasons, the diagnosis may be qualified on a spectrum of uncertainty.

OBJECTIVE.—

To examine how communication of uncertainty is an unexamined source of possible medical error. No study to our knowledge has examined pathology reports across multiple institutions. This study seeks to identify commonly used phrases of diagnostic uncertainty and their interpreted meanings by surgical pathologists and clinicians.

DESIGN.—

Anonymous surveys were completed at 3 major US academic institutions by 18 practicing staff pathologists, 12 pathology residents, 53 staff clinicians, and 50 resident/allied health professional clinicians at 5 standard tumor boards. All participants rated percentage certainty associated with 7 diagnostic terms. Pathologists answered 2 questions related to the ability to clarify a diagnosis using a comment and comfort wording pathology reports. Clinicians answered questions on how often they read a pathology report comment, if they found the comment helpful, and how comfortable they were in reading pathology reports.

RESULTS.—

A wide range in percentage certainty was found for each of the 7 diagnostic phrases. Both staff and resident clinicians and residents showed wide variability in interpreting the phrases. Twenty-five of 50 staff clinicians (52%) were very comfortable reading a pathology report, whereas only 4 of 53 resident clinicians (8%) were very comfortable reading a pathology report. Twenty-four of 53 staff clinicians (63%) reported always reading the comment, yet only 20 of 53 (27%) always found the comment helpful. The phrases "diagnostic of" and "consistent with" had the strongest agreement in meaning. The weakest agreement was between "suspicious for" and "compatible with."

CONCLUSIONS.—

Efforts to standardize diagnostic terms may improve communication.

Critical analysis of the quality of internet resources for patients with varicose veins

OBJECTIVE

Patients increasingly seek information on their medical conditions from the internet. The present study evaluated the quality and readability of readily available online patient resources for varicose veins.

METHODS

An internet search for "varicose veins" was conducted using the meta-search engines Yippy and Dogpile and the general search engines Google, Yahoo, and Bing with a cleared-cache web browser in July 2019. Two trained raters scored the websites separately on the dimensions of accessibility, accountability, interactivity, structure, and content. Any discrepancies were discussed, and a consensus was reached. Readability was calculated using four readability metric systems. Rater consistency was evaluated using kappa, weighted kappa, and interrater correlation coefficient, as indicated.

RESULTS

A total of 189 websites met the inclusion criteria. The total median quality score was 15.6 (interquartile range [IQR], 13.1-20.5; range, 7.4-31.3) of 38. The websites scored a median of 4 (IQR, 1-8) of 15 for accountability, 2 (IQR, 2-2) of 5 for interactivity, 4 (IQR, 2-4) of 4 for organization, and 6.4 (IQR, 3.9-7.9) of 14 for weighted content. Most websites (81.5%) were accessible. However, the overall readability was poor. The median Flesch-Kincaid reading ease score was 55.1 (IQR, 49.4-6.7), indicating that the text was fairly difficult to read. The median grade level was 10th grade using both the Flesch-Kincaid grade level and simple measure of the Gobbledygook index and 11th to 12th grade using the new Dale-Chall readability formula. Government websites were the most accountable, featured the best content, and were the most readable. The website traffic had a positive, nonlinear correlation with the total score and a negative, nonlinear correlation with the website rank (or position on the search result page). Website rank correlated negatively with the total score, although the correlation was weak.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of the online patient resources on varicose veins varies greatly, and the readability for most sites is poor. Government-sponsored websites had the highest quality and were the most readable. Physicians are advised to consider providing a list of appropriate websites to their patients to better inform them, avoid confusion, and ensure appropriate delivery of accurate and readable information.

Dermatopathologists' Experience With and Perceptions of Patient Online Access to Pathologic Test Result Reports

Importance

Many patients presently have access to their pathologic test result reports via online patient portals, yet little is known about pathologists' perspective on this topic.

Objective

To examine dermatopathologists' experience and perceptions of patient online access to pathology reports.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A survey of 160 dermatopathologists currently practicing in the United States who are board certified and/or fellowship trained in dermatopathology was conducted between July 15, 2018, and September 23, 2019. Those who reported interpreting skin biopsies of melanocytic lesions within the previous year and expected to continue interpreting them for the next 2 years were included.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Dermatopathologists' demographic and clinical characteristics, experiences with patient online access to pathologic test result reports, potential behaviors and reactions to patient online access to those reports, and effects on patients who read their pathologic test result reports online.

Results

Of the 160 participating dermatopathologists from the 226 eligible for participation (71% response rate), 107 were men (67%); mean (SD) age was 49 (9.7) years (range, 34-77 years). Ninety-one participants (57%) reported that patients have contacted them directly about pathologic test reports they had written. Some participants noted that they would decrease their use of abbreviations and/or specialized terminology (57 [36%]), change the way they describe lesions suspicious for cancer (29 [18%]), and need specialized training in communicating with patients (39 [24%]) if patients were reading their reports. Most respondents perceived that patient understanding would increase (97 [61%]) and the quality of patient-physician communication would increase (98 [61%]) owing to the availability of online reports. Slightly higher proportions perceived increased patient worry (114 [71%]) and confusion (116 [73%]). However, on balance, most participants (114 [71%]) agreed that making pathologic test result reports available to patients online is a good idea.

Conclusions and Relevance

Dermatopathologists in this survey study perceived both positive and negative consequences of patient online access to pathologic test result reports written by the respondents. Most participants believe that making pathologic test result reports available to patients online is a good idea; however, they also report concerns about patient worry and confusion increasing as a result. Further research regarding best practices and the effect on both patients and clinicians is warranted.

Simple contents and good readability: Improving health literacy for LEP populations

Accessing and receiving quality healthcare in an unfamiliar health system is a significant challenge for many new immigrants and refugees. This study aims to provide a three-phase model to develop a web-based health information website that helps populations with limited English proficiency (LEP) increase health literacy and improve healthcare service access.

METHOD

First, we conducted a needs assessment from community leaders and service providers. Second, we developed contents from credible sources and tested each item using multiple readability tests. Last, we revised each item to lower the readability and retest its readability.

RESULTS

The average reading level for the original 99 topics was assessed at 10.84 (SD= 3.26). After revisions, we were able to lower the readability to 8.56 (SD= 2.96), which was around two grade levels lower, on average.

CONCLUSION

the main purpose for building an English based health information website was to assist the population with LEP. By using simple English with lower readability, it will ease the translation process. This study demonstrates a process to develop suitable contents for populations in need. In the future, incorporating visual aid and other multimedia will be beneficial in user engagement and knowledge retention.

A Readability Analysis of Online Cardiovascular Disease-Related Health Education Materials

Background:

Online cardiovascular health materials are easily accessible with an Internet connection, but the readability of its content may limit practical use by patients.

Objective:

The goal of our study was to assess the readability of the most commonly searched Internet health education materials for cardiovascular diseases accessed via Google.

Methods:

We selected 20 commonly searched cardiovascular disease terms: aneurysm, angina, atherosclerosis, cardiomyopathy, congenital heart disease, coronary artery disease, deep vein thrombosis, heart attack, heart failure, high blood pressure, pericardial disease, peripheral arterial disease, rheumatic heart disease, stroke, sudden death, valvular heart disease, mini-stroke, lower extremity edema, pulmonary embolism, and exertional dyspnea. Terms were selected on Google and selected up to 10 results in order of presentation in the search results by reviewing a maximum of 15 pages of Google search results specifically providing education toward patients to yield 196 total patient education articles.

Key Results:

All readability measures assessing grade level measures found the 196 articles were written at a mean 10.9 (SD = 1.8) grade reading level. Moreover, 99.5% of the articles were written beyond the 5th- to 6th-grade level recommended by the American Medical Association.

Conclusions:

Given the prominent use of online patient education material, we consider readability as a quality metric that should be evaluated prior to online publication of any health education materials. Further study of how to improve the readability of online materials may enhance patient education, engagement, and health outcomes. [HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice. 2019;3(2):e74–e80.]

Plain Language Summary:

Patients often use Google as a tool for understanding their medical conditions. This study examined the readability of articles accessed via Google for commonly searched cardiovascular diseases and found all articles were written above reading grade levels appropriate for patients. We hope this study will promote the importance of ensuring that online patient education articles are written at appropriate reading levels.

How Do Patients Rate Their Radiation Oncologists in the Modern Era: An Analysis of Vitals.com

Introduction

The popularity of online physician rating websites has risen substantially. These third-party sites have the potential to significantly influence patients’ perception of their healthcare providers. The purpose of this study was to evaluate online ratings of U.S. radiation oncologists (ROs) on Vitals.com, one of the most popular physician rating websites, and the variables that most significantly affect patients’ overall rating (OR) of their ROs. 

Methods

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Physician Comparable Downloadable File was analyzed to obtain data on all self-identified ROs in the U.S. and Puerto Rico. Patient Review Satisfaction Scores (PRSS) that ranged from one (poor) to five (excellent) for the following variables were recorded: OR, accurate diagnosis, spending appropriate time with patients, ease of appointment, courteous staff, bedside manner, follow-up after visit, promptness, and wait time. Associations among these factors were assessed. 

Results

Of 4,443 self-identifying Medicare-accepting ROs, 1,797 (40.4%) ROs who had at least one OR rating and at least one written comment were included in this study. The ROs’ mean OR was 4.34 ± 0.2 (median 4; 30% received a score of 5; 78% received a score greater than 4). OR was found to have a strong correlation with accuracy of diagnosis (r = 0.69), bedside manner (r = 0.71), and spends appropriate time with patients (r = 0.69). With the exception of the number of ratings (p = 0.07), physicians with over 10 years of experience showed statistically significant differences in how much better they scored in each of the variables compared to those with less than 10 years of experience (p < 0.01 for each characteristic). Significant differences in OR were also observed between ROs whose wait times exceeded 20 minutes compared to those with wait times less than 10 minutes (p < 0.01) for all internal and external metrics except for the number of ratings (p = 0.42) and number of reviews (p = 0.88)

Conclusion

Patients are providing high ratings for their ROs on Vitals.com and are more frequently recommending them to friends and family. Given the rise in popularity of third-party physician rating sites, it is important for ROs to understand the various factors that may influence their online ratings.

Understanding Pancreatic Diseases Using Animated Pancreas Patient: Informing Patients for Better Health Outcomes With Visual Formats of Learning

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of Animated Pancreas Patient (APP) educational modules (APP website and YouTube) on pancreas education, awareness, and health outcomes.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of APP metrics data from September 2013 to October 2017. We evaluated audience reach (number of visit sessions, unique visitors, page views) and calculated top views by media type (animation, expert video, patient video, and slide show) and top retention videos from the modules. We also assessed the educational impact through learner feedback survey.

RESULTS

The APP had 1,475,252 views (547,693 unique visitors, 63.1% in United States) during the study period. Most popular topic viewed among the animations was "Role and Anatomy of the Pancreas" (n = 361,116), and most common expert video viewed was "Chronic Pancreatitis: What Foods and Beverages Should I Avoid?" (n = 31,667). Participants who completed the online feedback survey reported knowledge gains and commitments to change.

CONCLUSIONS

Pancreas education in visual formats of learning provided by APP demonstrated wide reach and has substantial potential to inform and impact behaviors of patients and caregivers. Continued efforts should be made to provide patient resources that address health literacy and patient education and respond to patient needs for better quality of life and improved health outcomes in pancreatic diseases.

Quantitative analysis of the level of readability of online emergency radiology-based patient education resources

PURPOSE

The vast amount of information found on the internet, combined with its accessibility, makes it a widely utilized resource for Americans to find information pertaining to medical information. The field of radiology is no exception. In this paper, we assess the readability level of websites pertaining specifically to emergency radiology.

METHODS

Using Google, 23 terms were searched, and the top 10 results were recorded. Each link was evaluated for its readability level using a set of ten reputable readability scales. The search terms included the following: abdominal ultrasound, abdominal aortic aneurysm, aortic dissection, appendicitis, cord compression, CT abdomen, cholecystitis, CT chest, diverticulitis, ectopic pregnancy, epidural hematoma, dural venous thrombosis, head CT, MRI brain, MR angiography, MRI spine, ovarian torsion, pancreatitis, pelvic ultrasound, pneumoperitoneum, pulmonary embolism, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and subdural hematoma. Any content that was not written for patients was excluded.

RESULTS

The 230 articles that were assessed were written, on average, at a 12.1 grade level. Only 2 of the 230 articles (1%) were written at the third to seventh grade recommended reading level set forth by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and American Medical Association (AMA). Fifty-two percent of the 230 articles were written so as to require a minimum of a high school education (at least a 12th grade level). Additionally, 17 of the 230 articles (7.3%) were written at a level that exceeded an undergraduate education (at least a 16th grade level).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of websites with emergency radiology-related patient education materials are not adhering to the NIH and AMA's recommended reading levels, and it is likely that the average reader is not benefiting fully from these information outlets. With the link between health literacy and poor health outcomes, it is important to address the online content in this area of radiology, allowing for patient to more fully benefit from their online searches.

Reputation Management and Content Control: An Analysis of Radiation Oncologists' Digital Identities

INTRODUCTION

Google is the most popular search engine in the United States, and patients are increasingly relying on online webpages to seek information about individual physicians. This study aims to characterize what patients find when they search for radiation oncologists online.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician Comparable Downloadable File was used to identify all Medicare-participating radiation oncologists in the United States and Puerto Rico. Each radiation oncologist was characterized by medical school education, year of graduation, city of practice, gender, and affiliation with an academic institution. Using a custom Google-based search engine, up to the top 10 search results for each physician were extracted and categorized as relating to: (1) physician, hospital, or health care system; (2) third-party; (3) social media; (4) academic journal articles; or (5) other.

RESULTS

Among all health care providers in the United States within CMS, 4443 self-identified as being radiation oncologists and yielded 40,764 search results. Of those, 1161 (26.1%) and 3282 (73.9%) were classified as academic and nonacademic radiation oncologists, respectively. At least 1 search result was obtained for 4398 physicians (99.0%). Physician, hospital, and health care-controlled websites (16,006; 39.3%) and third-party websites (10,494; 25.7%) were the 2 most often observed domain types. Social media platforms accounted for 2729 (6.7%) hits, and peer-reviewed academic journal websites accounted for 1397 (3.4%) results. About 6.8% and 6.7% of the top 10 links were social media websites for academic and nonacademic radiation oncologists, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Most radiation oncologists lack self-controlled online content when patients search within the first page of Google search results. With the strong presence of third-party websites and lack of social media, opportunities exist for radiation oncologists to increase their online presence to improve patient-provider communication and better the image of the overall field. We discuss strategies to improve online visibility.