After screening the top 50 results for the Google, Yahoo, and Bing searches, there were a total of 54 included results. 3 websites were present in Google, Yahoo, and Bing searches, 3 websites were duplicate in both Google and Bing searches, and 3 websites were duplicates in both Yahoo and Bing searches. Thus, after complete deduplication, there were 36 website links. Of the 36 websites, 9 (25.0%) directed readers to a single support group and 27 websites (75.0%) were databases of support groups for different dermatologic conditions.
In the Google search results, there were 17 (73.9%) links to databases and 6 (26.1%) links to individual support groups (Table 1). Groups were primarily based in the United States (65.2%) and hosted by nonacademic centers (82.6%). 56.5% of websites provided a contact email, 52.2% provided a contact phone number, and 65.2% provided a link to social media for the support group. The mean PEMAT understandability score was 74.0 and mean actionability score was 35.0.
Table 1
Google, Yahoo, and Bing Dermatologic Support Group Website Results
|
Google Search Results (n = 23)
|
Yahoo Search Results (n = 12)
|
Bing Search Results (n = 19)
|
Metric
|
Number (percentage)
|
Databases
|
17(73.9)
|
10 (83.3)
|
16 (84.2)
|
Single Links
|
6(26.1)
|
2(16.7)
|
3 (15.8)
|
Link hosted by a Nonacademic center
|
19(82.6)
|
12 (100)
|
18 (94.7)
|
Link hosted by an Academic center
|
4(17.4)
|
0 (0)
|
1 (5.3)
|
Location of support groups described in website
|
15 (65.2) US, 2 (8.7) UK, 2 (8.7) Canada, 4 (17.4) unspecified
|
8(66.7) US, 1(8.3) UK, 3(25.0) Canada
|
10 (52.6) US, 3 (10.5) unspecified international, 3 (15.8) UK,
3 (15.8) Canada
|
State (if provided)
|
2 (8.7) NC, 1(4.3) MN, 1 (4.3) IN, 2 (8.7) IL, 1 (4.3) NJ, 1 (4.3) GA, 1 (4.3)PA
|
1(8.3) NJ, 1(8.3) PA
|
1 (5.3) CA, 1 (5.3)GA, 1 (5.3)MN, 1(5.3)NC, 1(5.3)NJ, 2(10.6)PA
|
Format of support groups
|
3(50) virtual, 3(50) hybrid
|
1 (50), 1 (50) unspecified
|
1(33.3) hybrid, 2 (66.7) unspecified
|
Main website provided contact email
|
13(56.5)
|
7(58.3)
|
10 (52.6)
|
Main website provided contact phone number
|
12(52.2)
|
7(58.3)
|
12 (63.2)
|
Main website provided social media link
|
15(65.2)
|
9(75)
|
15 (78.9)
|
Description of each support group
|
9(52.9)
|
6(60)
|
10 (62.5)
|
Caregiver support groups available
|
2(8.7)
|
1(8.3)
|
3(15.8)
|
PEMAT Understandability
|
74.0
|
81.5
|
79.4
|
PEMAT Actionability
|
35.0
|
40.3
|
48.3
|
Descriptive counts and percentages of location, format, contact information, and understandability of web links for support groups for dermatologic conditions on Yahoo, Bing, and Google. |
PEMAT = Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool, US = United States, UK = United Kingdom, NC = North Carolina, MN = Minnesota, IN = Indiana, IL = Illinois, NJ = New Jersey, GA = Georgia, PA = Pennsylvania, CA = California |
In the Yahoo search results, there were 10 (83.3%) links to databases and 2 (16.7%) links to individual support groups. Groups were primarily based in the United States (66.7%) and hosted by nonacademic centers (100%). 58.3% of websites provided a contact email, 58.3% provided a contact phone number, and 75.0% provided a link to social media for the support group. The mean PEMAT understandability score was 81.5 and mean actionability score was 40.3.
In the Bing search results, there were 16 (84.2%) links to databases and 3 (15.8%) links to individual support groups. Groups were primarily based in the United States (52.6%) and hosted by nonacademic centers (94.7%). 52.6% of websites provided a contact email, 63.2% provided a contact phone number, and 78.9% provided a link to social media for the support group. The mean PEMAT understandability score was 79.4 and mean actionability score was 48.3
Single Links
Of the 9 unique websites which linked to one single support group, 3 websites (33.3%) were for psoriasis, 1 (11.1%) was for dermatologic care after organ transplantation, 1 (11.1%) was for hidradenitis suppurativa, 1 (11.1%) was for pityriasis rubra, and 3 (33.3%) were not specified. Five (55.5%) were groups based in the US, 1 (11.1%) was international, and 3 (33.3%) did not provide location. Six (66.7%) websites detailed groups hosted by non-academic institutions. Five (55.5%) websites listed a contact email, 4 (44.4%) listed a phone number, and 4 (44.4%) shared a social media link. The mean PEMAT understandability score was 66.6, and the mean actionability score was 32.4.
Databases
Of the 27 unique support group databases identified, the average number of dermatologic conditions included was 13.8 (Table 2). 20 (74%) databases contained information regarding at least one autoimmune or inflammatory cutaneous condition. Of the databases with links to support groups to autoimmune conditions, there were the greatest number of support group links for psoriasis, vitiligo, and alopecia areata. Of the databases which had links to support groups to inflammatory conditions, there were the greatest number of support group links for acne, atopic dermatitis, and psoriasis. Of the databases which had links to support groups for inflammatory conditions, only one discussed hidradenitis suppurativa.
Table 2
Dermatologic Support Group Database Search Results
Metric
|
Number (percent)
|
Average number of dermatologic diseases with support groups in each database
|
13.8
|
Support group links for Rheumatologic and Autoimmune dermatologic diseases
|
20 (74)
|
Support group links provided for neoplastic dermatologic diseases
|
17 (62.9)
|
Support group links provided for inflammatory dermatologic diseases
|
20 (74)
|
Support group links provided for psychocutaneous dermatologic diseases
|
0 (0)
|
Support group links provided for infectious and bacterial dermatologic diseases
|
6 (22.2)
|
Descriptive counts and percentages of support groups for different dermatologic diseases on online databases of online support groups.
Of all databases, 17 (62.9%) had links to support groups for neoplastic cutaneous conditions, with the most frequent condition being melanoma. There were no links to support groups for non-melanoma skin cancers (NMSC). Six (22.2%) of the databases contained information on infectious cutaneous sequelae including shingles, herpes, and sexually transmitted infections (STIs). None of the website databases had groups pertaining to primary psychocutaneous conditions such as trichotillomania, delusions of parasitosis, factitious dermatitis, or dysmorphophobia.