Quality of information on the Internet—has a decade made a difference?

  • Jeyanthi Kulasegarah
  • Kassandra McGregor
  • Murali Mahadevan
Original Article



While patients accessing the Internet can be a positive step towards health literacy and self-efficacy, these resources vary in quality.


In 2007, Kulasegarah et al. assessed the information available to patients on the Internet on three common ENT procedures (tonsillectomy, septoplasty, and myringoplasty), looking at the quality of the information in terms of completeness and accuracy. This is a follow-on study to examine how this information has changed after 10 years.


Following a Google search, the top 20 webpages on each of the three ENT procedures, tonsillectomy, septoplasty, and myringoplasty, were analyzed.


Webpages gave on average 50.6% of the critical information a patient should know prior to undergoing surgery. This is a drop from 2007 (65.5%). Over 96.8% were found to have no inaccuracies identified on the available information provided on the websites. This was slightly higher than in 2007 (94.7%). YouTube (10%) and hospital webpages (10%) were among the new subcategories that were not present in the 2007 study.


Due to the reduced completeness of information available to patients online, it is important that health professionals direct patients to appropriate websites if they wish to do their own research.


Accuracy Completeness Health Information Internet 



We would like to thank Dr. Peter Reid, Statistics Advisor, Auckland City Hospital, for his assistance with statistical analysis.


  1. 1.
    EUROSTAT (2016) Internet access and use statistics—households and individuals. Accessed July 26 2017
  2. 2.
    Hay J, Coups EJ, Ford J, DiBonaventura M (2009) Exposure to mass media health information, skin cancer beliefs, and sun protection behaviors in a United States probability sample. J Am Acad Dermatol 61(5):783–792. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    InternetLiveStats (2016) New Zealand Internet Users. Elaboration of data by International Telecommunication Union (ITU), World Bank, and United Nations Population Division. Accessed 17 Jan 2018
  4. 4.
    YouTube A (2005) Retrieve July 26, 2017 from Accessed 11 Oct 2017
  5. 5.
    Clifton A, Mann C (2011) Can YouTube enhance student nurse learning? Nurse Educ Today 31(4):311–313. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee JS, Seo HS, Hong TH (2014) YouTube as a source of patient information on gallstone disease. World J Gastroenterol: WJG 20(14):4066–4070. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Biggs TC, Bird JH, Harries PG, Salib RJ (2013) YouTube as a source of information on rhinosinusitis: the good, the bad and the ugly. J Laryngol Otol 127(8):749–754. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Neter E, Brainin E (2012) eHealth literacy: extending the digital divide to the realm of health information. J Med Internet Res 14(1):e19. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Feufel MA, Stahl SF (2012) What do web-use skill differences imply for online health information searches? J Med Internet Res 14(3):e87. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kulasegarah J, Harney M, Walsh M, Walsh RM (2012) The quality of information on three common ENT procedures on the Internet. Ir J Med Sci 181(2):221–224. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeyanthi Kulasegarah
    • 1
  • Kassandra McGregor
    • 1
  • Murali Mahadevan
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck SurgeryStarship Children’s HospitalAucklandNew Zealand
  2. 2.University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations