The Role of Social Media and Internet Search Engines in Information Provision and Dissemination to Patients with Kidney Stone Disease: A Systematic Review from European Association of Urologists Young Academic Urologists

Abstract

Introduction:

Kidney stone disease (KSD) affects millions of people worldwide and has an increasing incidence. Social media (SoMe) and search engines are both gaining in usage, while also being used by patients to research their conditions and aid in managing them. With this in mind, many authors have expressed the belief that SoMe and search engines can be used by patients and healthcare professionals to improve treatment compliance and help counseling and management of conditions such as KSD. We wanted to determine whether SoMe and search engines play a role in the management and/or prevention of KSD.

Materials and Methods:

The databases MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were used to search for relevant English language literature from inception to December 2017. Results were screened by title, abstract, and then full text, according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The data were then analyzed independently by the authors not involved in the original study.

Results:

After initial identification of 2137 records and screening of 42 articles, 10 studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The articles included focused on a variety of SoMe forms, including two articles each on twitter, YouTube, smartphone apps, and Google search engine and one article on Google insights and Google analytics. Regarding patient centered advice, while two articles covered advice on dietary, fluid intake, and management options, two additional articles each covered advice on fluid advice and management options only, while no such advice was given by three of the SoMe published articles.

Conclusions:

SoMe and search engines provide valuable information to patients with KSD. However, while the information provided regarding dietary aspects and fluid management was good, it was not comprehensive enough to include advice on other aspects of KSD prevention.

Introduction

Kidney stone disease (KSD) is a global health issue that is increasing in prevalence.¹ Over the last decade, the number of hospital admissions and procedures related to KSD has risen steeply.² Furthermore, a recent study³ found that the surgical management of KSD in the United Kingdom is becoming a growing healthcare burden especially with the number of procedures performed increasing each year with a reported life time prevalence of 14%.³

Social media (SoMe) are Web 2.0-based applications⁴ enabling the creation and publication of user-generated content.⁵ SoMe includes social networking sites, video sharing sites, blogs, web/smartphone-based applications, and wikis.⁴ Facebook, the most widely-used SoMe application, has ∼2.07 billion users worldwide,⁶ YouTube has over 1 billion users,^7,8 and Twitter⁴ has 330 million users.⁹ It can be seen that SoMe usage is increasing,⁵ and it is not just with younger generations. The Office for National Statistics¹⁰ found that in 2017, 88% of adults in United Kingdom used the Internet every week (a 51% increase from 2006).¹⁰ As SoMe usage increases, so does the influence it has on the medical decisions of the patients using it.

Patients have begun using SoMe to find online support groups and learn more about their conditions.¹¹ “Health subcultures” on Twitter¹¹ and Facebook patient “groups” allow users to share their personal stories and provide encouragement and advice to others.¹¹ In addition, several studies have shown that mobile technology has improved patients' adherence to treatment and understanding of their medical conditions.¹²

SoMe is already being used to aid in the management and prevention of diseases and to enhance public health education.^13,14 In the United States, the SoMe platform “WebView” has been trialled, enabling patients to contact their doctors with medical queries.¹³ Furthermore, clinicians have begun using Facebook and Twitter to educate their patients and more closely monitor their progress with suggested management/treatment.¹³ There is concern that using SoMe in this way could raise ethical issues; however, the majority of medical professionals surveyed agreed that it could lead to positive health outcomes.^13

–16 The PwC Health Research Institute (HRI) found that ∼90% of survey participants would trust medical information from SoMe networks.¹⁵

An Internet search engine (search engine) is software used to collect and organize content from the world wide web.¹⁷ The most popular search engine currently in use is Google. Created in 1996, Google now runs over 4.4 billion searches per day, worldwide, and 64% of all search engine searches are now powered by Google.¹⁸ It has been found that 72% of people using the Internet do so to find health information.¹⁹

In light of the increasing prevalence of KSD and of search engine and SoMe usage, this article aims to systematically review the current literature regarding search engines and SoMe and their role in the prevention and management of KSD, to determine what benefits have been found thus far and whether their usage and availability has changed over time with respect to KSD management and prevention.

Objectives

To determine the role of SoMe and search engine use in the management and/or prevention of KSD.

Materials and Methods

Criteria for considering studies for this review

This systematic review considered of articles that assessed how SoMe and/or search engines improved the compliance, understanding, and education of patients with KSD, as well as how it aided healthcare providers, to improve primary and secondary prevention and management of KSD.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria:

English language articles specific to KSD

Studies relating to any form of SoMe or any type of Internet search engine

Exclusion criteria:

Gray literature, editorials, letters, and other “comment” pieces

Studies involving pediatric patients or laboratory or animal studies

Search strategy for identification of studies

We perform a systematic review of the world literature to identify all studies pertaining to the accuracy or usefulness of search engines, or SoMe, for kidney stone formers. This was carried out in a Cochrane style and in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist (Fig. 1). Included literature contained either primary or secondary research and those which were not specific to KSD were excluded.

FIG. 1.

PRISMA flowchart of the included studies. PRISMA = Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

Information for this review was sourced, primarily, from various databases. Literature searches were run on six of the most “useful” databases (according to the Information Standard by NHS England).²⁰ These databases were chosen because they all contain a large volume of medically related literature and are some of the most commonly used databases in the United Kingdom²⁰ (and were therefore likely to contain the majority of literature available that satisfied the eligibility criteria). The six databases used were as follows: Ovid (Medline), where searches were run on both the “1996–2017 (without revisions)” and “1946–2017” versions; PubMed (the “freely available” version of Medline); Embase and Embase Classic+Embase, both of which contained articles from 1947 to 2017; Scopus; CINAHL; and Cochrane Library from inception to December 2017.

The following search terms were used, combined using the “AND” and “OR” search functions, in all five of the databases mentioned: “urolithiasis,” “kidney stone,” “kidney stone disease,” “KSD,” “calculi,” “nephrolithiasis,” “renal stone,” “ureteric stone,” “renal calculi,” “renal colic,” “kidney calculi,” “urinary stone,” “social media,” “google,” “youtube,” “yahoo,” “bing,” “apps,” “app,” “search engine,” “online,” “web,” “web-based,” “forum,” “wiki,” ‘twitter’, “internet,” “ehealth,” “mhealth,” “user-generated content,” and “blog.”

Data collection and analysis

As for the search process, data extraction was carried out by two authors (E.J. and B.S.), and all discrepancies were sorted by mutual agreement. Once the relevant articles were selected and duplicate excluded, the data extracted included: the year of publication, the aims and objectives of each study, the type of interactions being assessed (type of SoMe or search engine), the duration of each study, and the variables being assessed in the studies. By compiling the search results into a spreadsheet, analysis could be performed more efficiently.

References for the studies were compiled (where appropriate) by importing citations into EndNote Web. Those that could not be imported were manually entered using an EndNote template tool and by following Vancouver guidelines.²¹

Results

Study selection

The initial literature search produced 2137 results (30 from CINAHL, 286 from Cochrane, 185 from Embase, 75 from Medline, and 1561 from PubMed). Once screened by title and abstract, 2095 results were removed (due to failure to meet the inclusion criteria), leaving 42 results of potential relevance. Of these, 23 were duplicates, leaving 19 articles for which the full texts were obtained. At this stage, one study was removed as it was a pilot study, 2 were removed as they were found to be unrelated, and 6 were removed as they were gray literature; this left 10 articles for the final review (Fig. 1).

Description of studies

The articles included focused on a variety of SoMe forms, including two articles each on twitter, YouTube, smartphone apps, and Google search engine and one article each on Google insights and Google analytics (Tables 1 and 2).

Table 1.

Overview of Articles Included in Our Systematic Review

Article	Author	Journal	Year published	Interaction	Study length	Aims	Variables assessed
Is the Internet a reliable source for dietary recommendations for stone formers?	Traver	Journal of Endourology	2009	Google search engine	N/A	To determine the quality of dietary stone information available on the Internet	Presence/absence of four dietary recommendations Correctness of information Inaccuracy/deficiency of information
Use of Google insights for search to track seasonal and geographic kidney stone incidence in the United States	Breyer	Urology	2011	Google Insights	accessed Google Insights on October 5, 2010	To determine if Internet search volume for kidney stones has seasonal and geographic distributions similar to known kidney stone incidence	Seasonal and geographic information pertaining to nephrolithiasis-related search phrases
YouTube as a source of information on kidney stone disease	Sood	Urology	2011	YouTube	All videos created before March 8, 2010	To look into effective use of YouTube as an information source on kidney stone disease	Usefulness of videos Views Ratings Accuracy of information
Internet search trend analysis tools can provide real-time data on kidney stone disease in the United States	Willard	Urology	2013	Google Analytics	Google Analytics completed between January 4, 2004 and April 10, 2010	To evaluate the utility of using Internet search trends data to estimate kidney stone occurrence and understand the priorities of patients with kidney stone	Frequency of kidney stone-related search terms Most rapidly increasing search terms Search volume index for “kidney stones” search term Kidney stone searches vs average temperature in United States Mean annual temperature and latitude compared to search volume index by state
International Urology journal club through twitter: 12-month experience	Thangasamy	European Urology	2014	Twitter	12 months	To demonstrate the viability, growth, and sustainability of such a journal club To present a 12-month experience from the International Urology journal club (an international twitter-based journal club)	Number of total and new users Number of tweets and retweets (conversation threads) Relevance of tweets Number of impressions/reach (the total number of users mentioning the # and the sum of all their followers) Discussion generated (amplification through reposting)
Smartphone applications for urolithiasis	Stevens	Urolithiasis	2015	Smartphone apps	All apps produced before September 2013	To review available “apps” for urolithiasis To assess the level of medical professional involvement in their design	Cost Average user rating (customer satisfaction) Medical accuracy
Using behavior-change techniques to guide selections of mobile applications to promote fluid consumption	Conroy	Urology	2017	Smartphone apps	All apps produced before August/September 2015	To determine the extent to which fluid consumption apps use validated behavior-change techniques	Behavior change techniques used (using behavior-change taxonomy) Behavior-change techniques mentioned in the app description vs what was actually used
Quality of health information on the Internet for urolithiasis	Chang	Advances in Urology	2016	Google search engine	N/A	To determine the quality of health information on the Internet when searching for keywords related to urolithiasis	Quality of information
Online discussion on #KidneyStones: A longitudinal assessment of activity, users, and content	Salem	PLoS One	2016	Twitter	One-year period (October 1, 2014–October 1, 2015)	To assess the activity, users, and content of #KidneyStones on Twitter	Overall activity (number of tweets and users, rate and frequency of retweets, tweets with links, tweets with photos, and tweets with replies) Tweet enhancements User's geolocations Influencer analysis Content analysis (most frequently used words, tweet sentiment, shares)
The reliability of national videos related to the kidney stones on YouTube	Serinken	Turkish Journal of Urology	2016	YouTube	All videos before December 2014	To evaluate the features, reliability, and efficacy of videos on YouTube related to the treatment of kidney stones	Quality of information Usefulness Conformity of information to guidelines Presentation in language understandable by laypeople

Table 2.

Main Findings of Articles Included in Our Systematic Review

Article	Author	Main findings	Strengths	Limitations	Author's impression
Is the Internet a reliable source for dietary recommendations for stone formers?	Traver	Most accurate information provided by Urology and Nephrology websites Most mentioned advice was to increase fluid intake and reduce animal protein consumption Often incorrect advice regarding sodium and calcium consumption Inaccuracy is an issue due to lack of peer review Variable quality of information	A wide sample was taken The study fulfilled its objectives, highlighted possible future scope, and identified trends occurring regarding the same inaccuracies in advice given	Only one search engine used	Unlikely that users would look through 500 websites from the same search engine—more likely if different search engines were used The authors of the article intend to create their own website (authors may have bias or vested interest)
Use of Google insights for search to track seasonal and geographic kidney stone incidence in the United States	Breyer	Google Insights correlated most with acute nationwide inpatient sample admissions “kidney stones” had the highest correlation with national inpatient sample incidence Google Insights can be used to estimate the incidence of kidney stone disease	Thorough and justified screening was performed Use of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample provided an objective measure	Search power limited due to simple model usage Only one National Inpatient Data source used	Google users may not be a true representation of the population (which would reduce the tool's efficacy at tracking kidney stone incidence)
YouTube as a source of information on kidney stone disease	Sood	University's channels were most accurate All videos mentioned prevention, and over half discussed treatment Misleading videos had lower ratings and less views Needs better controls to prevent inaccurate information dissemination	A large video sample was taken Kappa-statistics usage allowed for subjectivity of the viewer	Only videos in English included Subjective scoring criteria	Scoring criteria is subjective, so it may have been better to use a larger group of researchers for analysis
Internet search trend analysis tools can provide real-time data on kidney stone disease in the United States	Willard	Internet search trends and Google Insights for Search reflect of clinical kidney stone disease trends Could be used to assess results of community outreach and help reveal etiologic factors	Statistically significant correlation between Google Insights for Search software predictions and predetermined patterns of kidney stone disease	Old reference data used (may not reflect current trends)	The Search Volume Index tool used is susceptible to changes in search volumes (e.g., due to holidays or public events) that may cause data to skew
International Urology journal club through twitter: 12-month experience	Thangasamy	Twitter provides the potential for international communication and collaboration between medical professionals It is reliable, sustainable, and appeals to both active and silent participants	The hashtag was accessible through search engines (did not exclude nontwitter users from participating) Third-party services were used to analyze threads (may reduce risk of bias)	Subjective analysis of knowledge gained	The study using third-party analysis meant that it was limited by the limitations of the third party
Smartphone applications for urolithiasis	Stevens	Less than half of the apps had healthcare professionals' input All medically accurate apps had medical professional input More stringent regulation of medical apps is needed	Large sample used Aims were met Author subjectivity was reduced using the 4-point Likert scale Two authors judged accuracy (reduces subjectivity)	More smartphone apps have since been created, therefore this is now outdated	Authors may have misjudged healthcare professionals' involvement
Using behavior-change techniques to guide selections of mobile applications to promote fluid consumption	Conroy	Paid and free apps used the same number of behavioral techniques Paid apps had a better user interface Fluid intake apps were most useful to patients struggling to remember/track their goal Unsure if the apps helped improve management, treatment, or prevention	Mean change-corrected agreement rate usage reduced subjectivity	Apps were not randomly selected	Apps were chosen with hydration in mind, and urolithiasis prevention was not searched for, which could lead to less apps being found that were aimed at patients
Quality of health information on the Internet for urolithiasis	Chang	Less than 1/12 of the websites were Health On the Net accredited Most health information wasn't validated	Health On the Net principles were used as an objective marker Large sample, so it was representative of the information available	Health On the Net accreditation is still gaining traction (lack of accreditation doesn't mean poor quality information)	Certification with HON membership comes at a fee after a year, therefore lack of HON accreditation may not be due to inaccuracy, but due to this
Online discussion on #KidneyStones: A longitudinal assessment of activity, users, and content	Salem	Rapid informal participation and discussion on Twitter were more appealing for laypersons Top influencers were patients and relatives Twitter is a good tool for delivery of advice/recommendations about kidney stone prevention for laypeople	Tweet metric analysis usage eliminated user bias and subjectivity A clear time period was set	A single hashtag was used (may not be totally representative)	The tweet metric analysis tools cannot detect irony etc. when analyzing content, and this may have affected results
The reliability of national videos related to the kidney stones on YouTube	Serinken	Hospitals made the most useful videos Specialists made the most “unprofessional” (least user-friendly) videos There is need for videos that are both educational and engaging	European Association of Urology guidelines were used to rate videos (objective measure of accuracy used) A large sample was analyzed	More videos have now been uploaded, so this is now outdated	When determining a video's “usefulness,” subjectivity may mean that other people viewing the videos would rate them differently to the researchers

Twitter

Two articles, both of 12 months duration, explored the popularity and content of different Twitter threads relating to KSD.^22,23 Salem and associates explored the #KidneyStones thread²² (whose most active participants were patients), and Thangasamy and coworkers monitored an international urology journal club (created with healthcare professionals in mind).²³ Both studies noted a large global audience, and both found that discussions taking place were largely positive.^22,23 Thangasamy and colleagues expressed that Twitter could be a useful tool for the online collaboration of international colleagues and a way of maintaining international relations.²³

Both articles analyzed data using third party tools (using the “Symplur signals analytics” tool, but Salem and colleagues²² also used “Tweetreach” and “Sprout social”). This reduced their risk of bias; however, it did add the limitation of third party tools potentially extracting incomplete data.

YouTube

Sood and colleagues²⁴ and Serinken and colleagues²⁵ both explored YouTube with relation to KSD. Both studies included all appropriate videos up until the time of data collection (March 2010²⁴ and December 2014,²⁵ respectively); therefore, there may be some overlap in videos examined. Both studies assessed the usefulness of the videos and the quality of information. Both studies were limited due to subjective evaluation criteria. They both noted potential opportunities for YouTube videos reaching laypeople; however, they also highlighted the flaw of misinformation (as video content is not screened for accuracy before being uploaded).

Google search engine

Two articles examined the quality of information available when using Google as a search engine^26,27; and two used Google Analytics²⁸ or Google Insights²⁹ to examine KSD search-term trends. Willard and Nguyen²⁸ and Breyer and colleagues²⁹ used Google Analytics and Google Insights, respectively. In this way, they proposed a novel way of utilizing search engines and SoMe to distinguish seasonal variation and trends to track KSD incidence²⁹ and examine what patients search for to determine their needs.²⁸ These approaches demonstrated the potential uses of search engines and SoMe for medical professionals to improve patient care.

Chang and colleagues²⁶ and Traver and colleagues²⁷ both explored Google as a search engine. Chang and colleagues assessed the quality of information available,²⁶ using HON principles (guidelines aiming to ensure that a website provides good-quality medical information),³⁰ thus reducing the risk of bias when evaluating the website results. Traver and coworkers looked for the presence of four dietary recommendations and evaluated accuracy.²⁷ Both studies found that the Internet is a large source of information for patients; however, this information is not controlled, therefore may not be accurate. Chang and associates²⁶ stated that healthcare professionals could utilize this resource and steer patients toward accurate information. Traver and coworkers²⁷ suggested the presence of a “gap in the market” for a resource that uses peer review and fact checking; however, this highlighted a potential conflict of interest in their research, as they are developing an interactive website for stone formers that fulfills this so-called “gap in the market.”

Smartphone apps

Two articles explored smartphone apps as the basis of intervention for KSD.^31,32 Stevens and associates assessed the medical accuracy of information provided and used a 4-point Likert scale to determine customer satisfaction.³¹ Conroy and associates used behavior-change taxonomy to assess which behavior-change techniques were provided by the apps.³² This study did not reach a determined conclusion regarding the effect on KSD management/prevention; however, authors found that fluid intake apps were most useful to patients. Stevens and associates found that SoMe are a useful resource, but that the accuracy of information is questionable due to poor regulation.³¹ They found that less than half of the apps had medical professional input, and all of the apps deemed “accurate” were those with such input.³¹

Due to the rapidly developing nature of SoMe and search engines, for all articles, as information was being gathered and analyzed it was already becoming outdated (due to more apps, videos etc. being released since the time of data collection). Therefore, this limitation was taken into consideration when reviewing these articles.

Discussion

Summary of main results

This systematic review aimed to ascertain the current use of SoMe and search engines in the prevention and management of KSD. It has been determined that there is an increase in SoMe⁵ and search engine usage¹⁰ and that more videos, apps, and search engine results are being created regarding management and prevention of KSD.^{22

–29,31,32} This is reflected in the articles examined in this study in which all were published since 2009. Regarding patient-centered advice, while two articles covered advice on dietary, fluid intake, and management options, two additional articles each covered advice on fluid intake and management options only, while no such advice was given by three of the SoMe published articles (Table 3). However, SoMe were not good in highlighting other associated causes of KSD such as diabetes, hypertension, and obesity.

Table 3.

Prevention and Management Advice Given in the Social Media Articles Selected for Our Review

		Dietary advice				Fluid management
Articles (search methodology)	Prevention	General	Sodium	Calcium	Protein	Quantity	Exercise	Management of associated medical conditions	Treatment options	Diagnosis and symptoms	Etiology and prognosis
Traver (Google search engine)	NA	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
Chang (Google search engine)	NA
Willard (Google Analytics)	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	Y	Y	Y
Breyer (Google Insights)	NA
Sood (YouTube)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	NA	NA	Y	Y	Y
Serinken (YouTube)	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	Y	Y
Thangasamy (Twitter)	NA
Salem (Twitter)	Y	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	Y	Y	NA
Stevens (Smartphone apps)	NA	Y	NA	Y	NA	Y			Y	NA	Y
Conroy (Smartphone apps)	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	Y	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA

NA = not available; Y = yes.

Role of SoMe in KSD

More articles are being published regarding SoMe and search engines in relation to KSD. Most articles found that the available resources and information across various forms of SoMe and through search engines were plentiful; however, it was also widely acknowledged by the researchers that there were not enough restrictions or quality checks for accuracy of information provided.^27,32 Therefore, they felt that there is a chance that the public could be receiving inaccurate information although this was speculative and not backed by any evidence.

In relation to KSD-related apps, authors found that they mainly targeted patients and that most apps seem to have no medical professional input. Therefore, the information could have been misleading to a layperson.^31,32 The need for greater regulation of quality of information of smartphone applications is evident. In light of this, it may be beneficial to conduct further research into popular apps with a rating system to distinguish apps with poor quality advice from those which are accurate. Furthermore, it appears that apps are not being targeted for use by healthcare professionals; however, this may be an area worth exploring as is the case in other areas where apps such as Medici³³ are being used to enhance doctor-patient communications and relations, to improve healthcare outcomes.

Similar to smartphone apps, it was found that YouTube videos were plentiful, but that many provided poor information. However, videos with poor or misleading information are distinguishable through lower ratings and lower reviews. Researchers agreed that YouTube is increasing in coverage and that medical professionals should therefore consider this a resource for patient information.^24,25 YouTube was found to be a promising educational tool, and it has the potential to educate kidney stone formers about risk factors and management of their condition and, therefore, has the potential to decrease prevalence of KSD if utilized to its full potential.

Researchers found Twitter to be appealing to laypeople, due to the fast sharing of information. All authors agreed that it is a rapidly growing platform, with wide outreach and great potential for both laypeople and the international collaboration of healthcare professionals.^22,23 Researchers deemed Twitter a good resource for those who are computer literate, as it appeals to both silent and active participants, and may have the potential to improve education of stone formers due to the involvement of both laypeople and medical professionals in one place.²²

With regard to search engine use, the same limitations as found with SoMe were noted. The most accurate information was ascertained from urologic and nephrologic websites. In the study utilizing Google Insights, it was found that the results from this tool correlated with KSD hospital admissions.²⁹ It is therefore plausible that this tool could be used to predict the prevalence of KSD, and in future it could be used to provide a greater standard of patient care. Using this, hospitals can predict spikes in KSD prevalence, and they can prepare for these patients more adequately. Finally, Google Analytics was found to provide insight into patient search trends, which had good correlation with KSD trends.²⁸ This tool holds scope for possible research, for example, into patient's most worrying symptoms (gleaned from their search terms) or patient's biggest concerns with KSD management/treatment. This could help improve medical professionals' understanding of their patients' needs and concerns, which could improve doctor–patient relations and improve patient care. The results also reflect a lack of awareness in SoMe around other associated factors such as obesity, hypertension, and diabetes.^34,35

Benefits and limitations of the study

In our review, all authors agreed that SoMe and search engine usage have increased. Therefore there are many possible uses of these tools in improving the management/prevention of KSD. A major issue facing SoMe and search engines is the lack of information quality/accuracy controls. However, if more research is done into regulatory measures with strict quality control or with the input from medical health professional, it is likely that these forms of information sharing have great health-improvement potential.

Limitations of our study include the exclusion of gray literature and articles not written in the English language. As this is a systematic review of literature, we looked at the published literature on SoMe but did not specifically look at the individual websites that provided patient information. Furthermore, due to the nature of SoMe and search engines, new search results and smartphone apps are continually being created. There is therefore a constant need for more up-to-date research into this topic that provides continual insight into their usage and benefits.

Future directions

SoMe could be utilized by healthcare professionals and their patients to aid in patient education, improve adherence, enhance patients' motivation to comply with recommended regimes, and improve doctor–patient relationships.^13,16 Almost 77% of patients begin their search for health information by utilizing a search engine and might even use online health information in place of contacting their doctor.¹⁹ It can therefore be seen that search engines may be a useful tool for health promotion and for providing patients with medical information. Considering that there is a growth of KSD in certain patient groups such as in pediatric patients, morbid obesity, or in pregnancy, currently little information is available on these groups of patients in SoMe.^36
–38 Perhaps with better policing of websites, more can be done so that up-to-date and relevant information can be shared for this vulnerable group. In an era of rising cost of medical insurance or cost of treatment borne by the patients, perhaps a simple nonbiased guide to the cost and efficacy of different treatments, avoiding medical jargon, might also be helpful to patients.³⁹

An important aspect of SoMe is the obligation for its responsible use, maintaining professional boundaries and patient confidentiality at all times.⁴⁰ Once posted these contents stay online forever, and hence, only balanced accurate information should be shared. An aspect of SoMe on the rise are “Blogs” which are usually written by urologists about a wide range of current health-related topics.⁴¹ Similarly, websites such as American urological association (AUA), European association of urologists (EAU), and British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) also provide patient information leaflets (Supplementary Table S1; Supplementary Data are available online at www.liebertpub.com/end).^42
–44 However, although they are accessible by the urologists, they may not always be accessible by the patients. Perhaps, more can be done to help patients toward guiding them to these websites and ensuring that their contents are accurate and constantly updated.^45,46

Conclusions

Footnotes

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

Abbreviations Used

References

Diseases NIoDaDaK. NIDDK Kidney Stones. 2017. Available at: www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/urologic-diseases/kidney-stones (Accessed October 30, 2017).

Geraghty

, Jones

, Somani

. Worldwide trends of urinary stone disease treatment over the last two decades: A systematic review. J Endourol, 2017; 31:547–556.

Rukin

, Siddiqui

, Chedgy

, et al. Trends in upper tract stone disease in England: Evidence from the hospital episodes statistics database. Urol Int, 2017; 98:391–396.

Obar

, Wildman

. Social media definition and the governance challenge: An introduction to the special issue. Telecom Policy, 2015; 39:745–750.

Kaplan

, Haenlein

. Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Bus Horiz, 2010; 53:59–68.

Noyes

. The Top 20 Valuable Facebook Statistics. 2018. Available at: https://zephoria.com/top-15-valuable-facebook-statistics (Accessed January 6, 2018).

Chan

, Cagle

, Campanella

, et al. Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Social Media (But Were Too Afraid to Ask). 41 ed. 2018. Available at: http://scalar.usc.edu/works/everything-you-always-wanted-to-know-about-social-media-but-were-too-afraid-to-ask/author-biographies (Accessed January 1, 2018).

YouTube. YouTube for Press. 2018. Available at: www.youtube.com/intl/en-GB/yt/about/press (Accessed January 6, 2018).

Statista. Number of monthly active Twitter users worldwide from 1st quarter 2010 to 3rd quarter 2017 (in millions). 2018. Available at: www.statista.com/statistics/282087/number-of-monthly-active-twitter-users (Accessed January 6, 2018).

10.

Prescott

. Internet access—Households and individuals: 2017. Available at: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/householdcharacteristics/homeinternetandsocialmediausage/bulletins/internetaccesshouseholdsandindividuals/ (Accessed November 20, 2017).

11.

Chretien

, Kind

. Social media and clinical care: Ethical, professional, and social implications. Circulation, 2013; 127:1413–1421.

12.

O'Keeffe

, Clarke-Pearson

. The impact of social media on children, adolescents, and families. Pediatrics, 2011; 127:800–804.

13.

Ventola

. Social media and health care professionals: Benefits, risks, and best practices. Pharm Ther, 2014; 39:491–499.

14.

Control CfD. @CDCgov. 2018. Available at: https://twitter.com/CDCgov (Accessed January 1, 2018 ).

15.

Catley

. Why Facebook Advertising is Now a Best Practice for Medical Marketers. 2018. Available at: www.mdconnectinc.com/medical-marketing-insights/facebook-advertising-best-practice-medical-marketers (Accessed January 1, 2018 ).

16.

George

, Rovniak

, Kraschnewski

. Dangers and opportunities for social media in medicine. Clin Obstet Gynecol, 2013; 56:453–462.

17.

Kimmons

. Definition of a Search Engine. 2017. Available at: www.thebalance.com/search-engine-2867354 (Accessed November 11, 2017 ).

18.

Chris

. Topicos 10 Search Engines in the World. 2017. Available at: www.reliablesoft.net/top-10-search-engines-in-the-world/ (Accessed November 20, 2017 ).

19.

Girgis

. Where do patients go for their online health information. 2016. Available at: http://drlinda-md.com/2016/11/onlinehealthinformation. (Accessed November 20, 2017 ).

20.

De Brun

. Useful databases. 2017. Available at: www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/tis-evidence-wrkshp-caroline-de-brun.pdf (Accessed November 24, 2017 ).

21.

. Citing and referencing. 2018. Available at: http://library.soton.ac.uk/sash/referencing (Accessed January 1, 2018 ).

22.

Salem

, Borgmann

, Bultitude

, et al. Online Discussion on #KidneyStones: A longitudinal assessment of activity, users and content. PLoS One, 2016; 11:e0160863.

23.

Thangasamy

, Leveridge

, Davies

, et al. International Urology Journal Club via Twitter: 12-month experience. Eur Urol, 2014; 66:112–117.

24.

Sood

, Sarangi

, Pandey

, et al. YouTube as a source of information on kidney stone disease. Urology, 2011; 77:558–562.

25.

Serinken

, Eken

, Erdemir

, et al. The reliability of national videos related to the kidney stones on YouTube. Turk J Urol, 2016; 42:7–11.

26.

Chang

, Abouassaly

, Lawrentschuk

. Quality of health information on the internet for urolithiasis on the Google search engine. Adv Urol, 2016; 2016:8243095.

27.

Traver

, Passman

, LeRoy

, et al. Is the Internet a reliable source for dietary recommendations for stone formers?. J Endourol, 2009; 23:715–717.

28.

Willard

, Nguyen

. Internet search trends analysis tools can provide real-time data on kidney stone disease in the United States. Urology, 2013; 81:37–42.

29.

Breyer

, Sen

, Aaronson

, et al. Use of Google Insights for Search to track seasonal and geographic kidney stone incidence in the United States. Urology, 2011; 78:267–271.

30.

.Foundation HotN. The commitment to reliable health and medical information on the internet. 2018. Available at: www.hon.ch/HONcode/Patients/Visitor/visitor.html (Accessed January 1, 2018 ).

31.

Stevens

, McKenzie

, Cui

, et al. Smartphone apps for urolithiasis. Urolithiasis, 2015; 43:13–19.

32.

Conroy

, Dubansky

, Remillard

, et al. Using behavior change techniques to guide selections of mobile applications to promote fluid consumption. Urology, 2017; 99:33–37.

33.

Medici. The future of the doctor–patient relationship. 2018. Available at: https://medici.md (Accessed January 1, 2018 ).

34.

Wong

, Cook

, Somani

. The association of metabolic syndrome and urolithiasis. Int J Endocrinol, 2015; 2015:1–9.

35.

Wong

, Cook

, Roderick

, et al. Metabolic syndrome and kidney stone disease: A systematic review of literature. J Endourol, 2016; 30:246–253.

36.

Ishii

, Griffin

, Somani

. Ureteroscopy for stone disease in the paediatric population—A systematic review. BJU Int, 2015; 115:867–873.

37.

Ishii

, Couzins

, Aboumarzouk

, et al. Outcomes of systematic literature review of Ureteroscopy for stone disease in the Obese and Morbidly Obese Population. J Endourol, 2016; 30:135–145.

38.

Ishii

, Aboumarzouk

, Somani

. Current status of ureteroscopy for Stone Disease in Pregnancy. Urolithiasis, 2014; 42:1–7.

39.

Wright

, Rukin

, Smith

, et al. ‘Mini, ultra, micro’—Nomenclature and cost of these new minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) techniques. Ther Adv Urol, 2016; 8:142–146.

40.

Murphy

, Loeb

, Basto

, et al. Engaging responsibility with social media: The BJUI guidelines. BJUI, 2014; 114:9–11.

41.

Loeb

, Roupret

, Oort

, et al. Novel use of twitter to disseminate and evaluate adherence to clinical guidelines by the European Association of Urology. BJUI, 2017; 119:820–822.

42.

American Urological Association. Urology Care Foundation. Available at http://www.urologyhealth.org/educational-materials/kidney-stones-x1410 (Accessed May 27, 2018 ).

43.

European Association of Urologists. Patient Information. Available at http://patients.uroweb.org/library/kidney-ureteral-stones (Accessed May 27, 2018 ).

44.

Association of Urological Surgeons. Available at https://www.baus.org.uk/patients/conditions/6/kidney_stones (Accessed May 27, 2018 ).

45.

Phillips

, Hanchanale

, Myatt

, et al. Citrate salts for preventing and treating calcium containing kidney stones in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2015; 6:CD010057.

46.

Somani

, Robertson

, Kata

. Decreasing the cost of flexible ureterorenoscopic procedures. Urology, 2011; 78:528–530.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB