Online health information is becoming increasingly popular among patients. However, concerns have been raised since the quality of information varies and may lead to misinformation, distress and even adversely affect the patient-physician relationship. This investigation aimed to identify differences in the content and quality of online health information of pelvic organ prolapse depending on the utilized source.

The platforms Google search, LinkedIn, YouTube, Instagram and Facebook were searched between March to June 2021 for the keyword “pelvic organ prolapse”. The first 30 search results were used for analysis. Results were categorized as useful, misleading, advertising, and personal experience. Useful was defined if the content contained scientifically accurate information about any aspect of the disease. In contrast, misleading content contained advertisements, jokes, or job postings. Data were categorized by website organization into individual health care professionals, professional organizations, industry, patients, and individuals. Medical content was analyzed and classified as pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment. 
The readability score, Alexa score, and HealthOnTheNet-toolbar were analyzed for Google searches. Descriptive analysis was performed. Univariate analysis was performed to assess heterogeneity with respect to the distribution of information as a function of source. A p-value <0.05 was considered significant. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 16.

There were significant differences between the source and the occurrence of useful content, advertising, and personal experiences. The source with the highest quantity of useful content was Youtube, whereas advertising and misleading content were most common on LinkedIn. The source with the highest quantity of personal experience was Instagram. The most common organization on Google search [n=24 (80%)], Facebook [n=17 (56.7%)] and LinkedIn [n=9 (30%)] were professional organizations. Healthcare professionals were the most common organization in Youtube [n=29 (96.7%)] and Instagram [n=13 (43.3%)]. 

Regarding medical content, pathophysiology was most frequently addressed on YouTube [n=22 (73.3%)], whereas diagnostics and surgical treatment was most frequently addressed on Google. Youtube and Google provided the greatest variety of medical content. However, a lack of adequate comprehensive content covering all aspects of POP repair has been identified for all sources. 

The most frequent reported secondary diseases related to pelvic organ prolapse were birth trauma, faecal incontinence, sexual dysfunction, or sleep disturbances. OAB or SUI were only reported in up to 36.7%

For Google searches, the mean Alexa score was 360039, and 12 (40%) were HON-qualified. The mean readability score was 10.4.

Besides the popular search engine Google, Youtube has been identified as a valuable source of online content on POP. Although Google search for pelvic organ prolapse is very popular according to Alexa ranking, only 40% of the websites were HON qualified. Furthermore, the readability score was challenging, limiting the accessibility for patients and leading to misinformation. Nevertheless, there is a lack of aeaquate presentation of all available treatment option of POP.

Urogynecological association may contribute to improve patient information by providing online health information which is complete and easy to understand.

Continence 2S2 (2022) 100422
DOI: 10.1016/j.cont.2022.100422