Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The quality of information available on the internet for patients wishing to make a complaint against an orthodontic practitioner

  • Feature
  • Published:
BDJ In Practice

Abstract

Introduction The use of the internet has grown rapidly and patients increasingly search online for information on healthcare topics, including on how to raise a complaint against an orthodontic practitioner.

Aim Evaluate the quality of internet information for raising a complaint against an orthodontic treatment provider.

Materials and methods An internet search was performed using three key terms: 'complain braces'; 'complain orthodontic treatment' and 'complain orthodontist' in Google, Yahoo, and Bing. The first thirty links of each search were identified and evaluated in terms of accessibility and usability using LIDA, reliability using SoftSite and readability using WebFX/ Flesh-Kincaid Reading Ease Test.

Results Fifty-two websites were included in the study and grouped into advice websites, dental practice websites and government/regulatory websites. Ninety per cent had been updated within the last two years. Only two websites did not have a complaints policy visible. Using the LIDA instrument, the median usability score was 47 and reliability score was 25. The median score of pages with errors was 72% using SoftSite and the Flesh-Kincaid Reading Ease Score was 62.

Conclusion Information on the internet scored well for reliability and usability, however, developers should continue to strive to make their websites more accessible and readable.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1.

References

  1. General Dental Council. Standards for the Dental Team, 2013. General Dental Council: London.

  2. Collier A. The management of risk. Part 4: resolving complaints. Dent Update 2014; 41: 423-427.

  3. Singh P, Mizrahi E and Korb S. A five-year review of cases appearing before the General Dental Council's Professional Conduct Committee. Br Dent J 2009; 206: 217-223.

  4. Poushter J. Smartphone ownership and Internet usage continues to climb in emerging economies, 2016. Pew Research Centre: Washington.

  5. Fox S. The social life of health information, 2011. Pew Research Centre, Washington.

  6. O'Malley C. Trends in dental complaints - did patients complain more during the recession? Dent Update 2017; 44: 592-595.

  7. Vermaire J H and Eijkman M A. Complaints against dentists. Nederlands Tijschrift Voor Tandheelkunde 2001; 108: 11-15.

  8. Mizrahi E. Risk management in clinical practice. Part 7. Dento-legal aspects of orthodontic practice. Br Dent J 2010; 209: 381-390.

  9. Jorgensen G. Social media basics for orthodontists. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012; 141: 510-515.

  10. General Dental Council. General Dental Council patient and public survey 2017. Online information available at: https://www.gdc-uk.org/docs/default-source/research/public-and-patient-2017-topline.pdf?sfvrsn=70bfcdb7_2 (Accessed 7 December 2019).

  11. Antonarakis G S and Kiliaridis S. Internet derived information on cleft lip and palate for families with affected children. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J 2009; 46: 75-80.

  12. Aldairy T, Laverick S and McIntyre GT. Orthognathic surgery: is patient information on the Internet valid? Eur J Orthod 2011; 34: 466-469.

  13. Bavbek N C, Tuncer B B. Information on the Internet regarding orthognathic surgery in Turkey: is it an adequate guide for potential patients? Turk J Orthod 2017; 30: 78-83.

  14. Patel U and Cobourne M T. Orthodontic extractions and the Internet: quality of online information available to the public. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 139: e103-109.

  15. Livas C, Delli K and Ren Y. Quality evaluation of the available Internet information regarding pain during orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod 2013; 83: 500-506.

  16. Parekh J and Gill D S. The quality of orthodontic practice websites. Br Dent J 2014; 216: E21.

  17. Pithon M M and dos Santos E S. Information available on the Internet about pain after orthognathic surgery: a careful review. Dent Press J Orthod 2014; 19: 86-92.

  18. Verhoef W A, Livas D, Delli K and Ren Y. Assessing the standards of online oral hygiene instructions for patients with fixed orthodontic appliances. J Am Dent Assoc 2015; 146: 310-317.

  19. Dogramaci E J and Rossi-Fedele G. The quality of information on the Internet on orthodontic retainer wear: a cross-sectional study. J Orthod 2016; 43: 47-58.

  20. McMorrow S M and Millett D T. Adult orthodontics: a quality assessment of Internet information. J Orthod 2016; 43: 186-192.

  21. Madahar A, Qureshi U, Johal A. Orthodontic treatment modalities: a qualitative assessment of Internet information. J Orthod 2017; 44: 82-89.

  22. Olkun H K, Demirkaya A A, Aras B. The quality of Internet Information on lingual orthodontics in the English language, with DISCERN and JAMA. J Orthod 2019; 46: 20-26.

  23. University of Cambridge. University of Cambridge web accessibility guidelines 2011. Online information available at: http://web.archive.org/web/20120616033230/http://www.cam.ac.uk/site/accessibility-guidelines/evaluating.html (Accessed 7 December 2019).

  24. Web Accessibility Initiative. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) Overview 2018. Online information available at: https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag (Accessed 7 December 2019).

  25. Flesch R A. A new readability yardstick. J Appl Pyschol 1948; 32: 221-233.

  26. . Designing your website header, body and footer 2018. Online information available at: https://www.website.com/website-builder-and-web-design/designing-your-website-header-body-and-footer (Accessed 7 December 2019).

  27. Wang L, Wang J, Wang M, Li Y, Liang Y and Xu D. Using Internet search engines to obtain medical information: a comparative study. J Med Internet Res 2012; 14: e74.

  28. Patel A and Cobourne M T. The design and content of orthodontic practise websites in the UK is suboptimal and does not correlate with search ranking. Eur J Orthod 2015; 37: 447-452.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dunboyne Dental Laboratory and Surgery, Unit 3, The Green Shopping Centre, Dunboyne, Ireland

    Vessela Tzotcheva Vassileva

  2. London, UK

    Parmjit Singh

Authors
  1. Vessela Tzotcheva Vassileva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Parmjit Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vessela Tzotcheva Vassileva.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tzotcheva Vassileva, V., Singh, P. The quality of information available on the internet for patients wishing to make a complaint against an orthodontic practitioner. BDJ In Pract 33, 22–26 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41404-020-0529-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41404-020-0529-y

  • Springer Nature Limited

Search

Navigation