HSS Journal ®

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 271–275 | Cite as

Patient Perceptions and Current Trends in Internet Use by Orthopedic Outpatients

  • M. Tyrrell Burrus
  • Brian C. WernerEmail author
  • James S. Starman
  • Gregory M. Kurkis
  • Jonathan M. Pierre
  • David R. Diduch
  • Joseph M. Hart
Original Article



Many studies have highlighted concerns about the completeness and quality of information found online and how this may affect patients’ education about their medical problems. One aspect of internet usage that has received less attention in the literature, however, is patient perception of the information that is gathered online, and how patients use it related to their musculoskeletal care.


The objective of the study is to utilize a cross-sectional study design to describe internet usage and patient perceptions of orthopedic online information and to identify differences in usage patterns.


One thousand two hundred ninety-six questionnaires were distributed to consecutive patients at orthopedic outpatient clinics which consisted of questions pertaining to patients’ internet use. Basic demographic data were collected, and subgroup analyses were performed to examine the effect of three variables (age, gender, and clinic type) on various outcomes.


84.9% of patients reported access to the internet. Of patients with internet access, 64.7% reported using the internet for obtaining orthopedic information. 43.1% of the respondents who searched for orthopedic information rated it as “very useful,” 56.3% found it “somewhat useful,” and 0.6% found it “not at all useful”. Younger patients were more likely to have used the internet for health and orthopedic information and to have found this information either very or somewhat useful. Males were more likely to have found the internet information very useful. Overall, only 33.7% of patients who researched their current orthopedic complaint accessed the institutional website for information.


A large proportion of patients use the internet to research orthopedic information and most patients, especially younger males, find the information useful.


Internet Health information Perception 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

M. Tyrrell Burrus, MD; Brian C. Werner, MD; James S. Starman, MD; Gregory M. Kurkis, MD; Jonathan M. Pierre, BS have declared that they have no conflict of interest. Joseph M. Hart, PhD reports other from Elsevier and Springbok, Inc., and grants from Genzyme, outside the work. David R. Diduch, MD reports grants from Aesculap/B. Braun, Genzyme and Zimmer, personal fees from Depuy-Mitek, other from Smith and Nephew and Springer, outside the work.

Human/Animal Rights

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008 (5).

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.

Required Author Forms:

Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the online version of this article.

Supplementary material

11420_2017_9568_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.2 mb)
ESM 1 (PDF 1224 kb)


  1. 1.
    Aslam N, Bowyer D, Wainwright A, Theologis T, Benson M (2005) Evaluation of Internet use by paediatric orthopaedic outpatients and the quality of information available. J Pediatr Orthop B. 14(2):129–33.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beall MS 3rd, Golladay GJ, Greenfield Ml, Hensinger RN, Biermann JS (2002) Use of the Internet by pediatric orthopaedic outpatients. J Pediatr Orthop 22(2):261-4.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beredjiklian PK, Bozentka DJ, Steinberg DR, Bernstein J (2000) Evaluating the source and content of orthopaedic information on the Internet. The case of carpal tunnel syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82-A(11):1540–3.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bruce-Brand RA, Baker JF, Byrne DP, Hogan NA, Mccarthy T (2013) Assessment of the quality and content of information on anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction on the internet. Arthroscopy. 29(6):1095–1100. doi:  10.1016/J.Arthro.2013.02.007.
  5. 5.
    Duncan IC, Kane PW, Lawson KA, Cohen SB, Ciccotti MG, Dodson CC (2013) Evaluation of information available on the internet regarding anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 29(6):1101–1107 doi:  10.1016/J.Arthro.2013.02.008.
  6. 6.
    Fraval A, Ming Chong Y, Holcdorf D, Plunkett V, Tran P (2012) Internet use by orthopaedic outpatients - current trends and practices. Australas Med J. 5(12):633–638 doi:  10.4066/Amj.2012.1530.
  7. 7.
    Gupte CM, Hassan AN, Mcdermott ID, Thomas RD (2002) The internet--friend or foe? A questionnaire study of orthopaedic out-patients. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 84(3):187–92.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jariwala AC, Kandasamy, ARJ, Wigderowitz CA (2004) Patients and the internet: a demographic study of a cohort of orthopaedic out-patients. Surgeon. 2(2):103–6.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mathur S, Shanti N, Brkaric M, Sood V, Kubeck J, Paulino C, Merola AA (2005) Surfing for scoliosis: the quality of information available on the Internet. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 30(23):2695–700.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Romano R, Baum N (2014) Reputation management. J Med Pract Manage. 29(6):369–372.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sambandam SN, Ramasamy V, Priyanka P, Ilango B (2007) Quality analysis of patient information about knee arthroscopy on the World Wide Web. Arthroscopy. 23(5):509–513.e2. doi:  10.1016/j.arthro.2006.12.007.
  12. 12.
    Segal J (2012) Managing your online reputation. J Med Pract Manage. 27(6):341–3.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shuyler KS, Knight KM (2003) What are patients seeking when they turn to the Internet? Qualitative content analysis of questions asked by visitors to an orthopaedics Web site. J Med Internet Res. 5(4):e24 doi:  10.2196/Jmir.5.4.E24.
  14. 14.
    Source: Internet World Stats (2015) Internet Usage Statistics: The Internet Big Picture. In: Internetworldstats.Com. Accessed September 1 2015.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Starman JS, Gettys FK, Capo JA, Fleischli JE, Norton HJ, Karunakar MA (2010) Quality and content of Internet-based information for ten common orthopaedic sports medicine diagnoses. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 92(7):1612–1618 doi:  10.2106/Jbjs.I.00821.
  16. 16.
    Verhoef LM, Van De Belt TH, Engelen LJ, Schoonhoven L, Kool RB (2014) Social media and rating sites as tools to understanding quality of care: a scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 16(2):e56 doi:  10.2196/Jmir.3024.
  17. 17.
    Yi PH, Ganta A, Hussein KI, Frank RM, Jawa A (2013) Readability of arthroscopy-related patient education materials from the American Academy Of Orthopaedic Surgeons And Arthroscopy Association Of North America Web sites. Arthroscopy. 29(6):1108–1112 doi:  10.1016/J.Arthro.2013.03.003.

Copyright information

© Hospital for Special Surgery 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Tyrrell Burrus
    • 1
  • Brian C. Werner
    • 1
    Email author
  • James S. Starman
    • 1
  • Gregory M. Kurkis
    • 1
  • Jonathan M. Pierre
    • 1
  • David R. Diduch
    • 1
  • Joseph M. Hart
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryUniversity of Virginia Health SystemCharlottesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations