Quality evaluation of internet resources related to breast surgery in major search engines in Korea

• Published in: Archives of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Vol. 30; no. 2; pp. 44 - 52
• Main Authors: Lee, Hee Jong, Kim, Dong Jin, Lee, Nara, Eom, Jin Sup, Oh, Tae Suk, Kim, Eun Key
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Korean Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 01.04.2024; 대한미용성형외과학회
• Subjects: breast implants; health behavior; health literacy; internet; search engine; 성형외과학
• ISSN: 2234-0831; 2288-9337
• DOI: 10.14730/aaps.2023.01011

Background With the increasing number of internet users, search engines have become a widely used source of health-related information. However, evaluating the quality of medical information obtained through search engines can be challenging. This study aimed to evaluate the quality of search results related to breast implants obtained from major domestic websites in Korea using systematic evaluation standards.Methods Two main primary search terms (“gaseum” [breast] implant and “yubang” [breast] implant), along with 15 adjunct search terms, were combined and searched in Google, Naver, and Daum. The top 20 websites were evaluated and classified according to their type and provider. They were scored using the Korean Medical Association’s Internet Health Information Certification Standards. The proportion of significant websites, their categorical distribution, and the quality of information scores were then compared.Results Google yielded the highest number of appropriate results, with statistical significance. Blogs (36.4%) and news (34.8%) were the most common types of search results, while healthcare provider groups (49.5%) constituted the most common provider subgroup. Only 1.9% of the search results were from public organizations. Google had a significantly higher average quality score (14.04) than Naver (13.22), and Daum (12.45) (P<0.05).Conclusions Although almost half of the search results were provided by medical personnel, their average quality score (13.16) was below the overall average (13.36) and far below the 21 points of the journal/abstract category. The findings highlight the need for healthcare providers to provide high-quality medical information, and for users to develop high-level digital health literacy.