Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 Jan-Feb;26(1):100389.
doi: 10.1016/j.bjpt.2022.100389. Epub 2022 Jan 21.

Patients should not rely on low back pain information from Brazilian official websites: A mixed-methods review

Raiany Pires Santos  1 , Thamires Prazeres Alonso  1 , Igor Macedo Tavares Correia  2 , Leandro Calazans Nogueira  3 , Ney Meziat-Filho  2 , Felipe J J Reis  4
Affiliations
Review

Patients should not rely on low back pain information from Brazilian official websites: A mixed-methods review

Raiany Pires Santos et al. Braz J Phys Ther. 2022 Jan-Feb.

Abstract

Background: Websites from official organizations (e.g., Ministry of Health and Professional Councils) are assumed to be trustworthy sources of information.

Objective: To investigate the credibility, accuracy, and readability of low back pain (LBP) web-based content in Brazilian official websites.

Methods: Mixed-methods review. Google search was used for retrieving web-information about Brazilian trustworthy organizations. We assessed the URLs on three domains: credibility, accuracy, and readability of LBP contents. Qualitative analysis was performed using an open source platform in three stages: (1) organization into thematic units; (2) data exploration; and (3) interpretation of the data and summarization.

Results: We included 84 URLs. Accuracy was assessed for 58 URLs and none fully adhered to the guidelines. Credibility analysis was performed for 67 URLs. Disclosure of authorship was not mentioned in 58 (87%) of the URLs, 63 (94%) did not mention the sources of their information, none presented a declaration of conflict of interest, and 16 (24%) did not provide the date of creation. Readability was assessed for 72 URLs and was classified as "easy" to read in 65%. Six main themes emerged in the qualitative analysis: (1) Explanations and causes for LBP, (2) diagnosis, (3) recommendations about medication, (4) recommendations for coping and self-management, (5) performing exercises, and (6) recommendations for children and adolescents.

Conclusions: The reading level is appropriate for patient-oriented information. However, Brazilian official websites demonstrated low credibility standards and while some of the content is partially supported by the current literature, there is also much inaccurate information about LBP.

Keywords: Access to information; Consumer health information; Information dissemination; Low back pain; Medical informatics; Physical therapy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of interest The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Figure 1
Flowchart of the selection of the URLs included in the study.
Fig. 2
Figure 2
Accuracy of information about low back pain on the URLs assessed (n = 58).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Vos T., Barber R.M., Bell B., et al. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 301 acute and chronic diseases and injuries in 188 countries, 1990-2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet. 2015;386(9995):743–800. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Menezes Costa L.C., Maher C.G., Hancock M.J., McAuley J.H., Robert D, Herbert LOPCP. The prognosis of acute and persistent low-back pain: a meta-analysis. Cmaj. 2012;184(11):1229–1230. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hoy D.G., Smith E., Cross M., et al. Reflecting on the global burden of musculoskeletal conditions: lessons learnt from the global burden of disease 2010 study and the next steps forward. Ann Rheum Dis. 2015;74(1):4–7. - PubMed
    1. Henschke N., Maher C.G., Refshauge K.M., et al. Prevalence of and screening for serious spinal pathology in patients presenting to primary care settings with acute low back pain. Arthritis Rheum. 2009;60(10):3072–3080. - PubMed
    1. Grunau G.L., Darlow B., Flynn T., O'Sullivan K., O'Sullivan PB, Forster BB. Red flags or red herrings? Redefining the role of red flags in low back pain to reduce overimaging. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52(8):488–489. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources