Centre for Health, Activity and Rehabilitation Research, School of Physiotherapy, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Eur J Pain. 2018 Apr;22(4):728-744. doi: 10.1002/ejp.1158. Epub 2017 Dec 27.
(1) To develop a checklist to assess the representation of biopsychosocial lower back pain (LBP) online information; (2) to analyse publicly accessed online LBP information from a Google search for the degree that psychosocial contributors are described alongside the traditional biomedical approach to explaining LBP; (3) whether websites use information on pain biology to educate on LBP; (4) any inaccurate or false information regarding the mechanisms of LBP and; (5) the amount of websites certified by established benchmarks for quality health information.
An online search was conducted using the Google search engines of six major English-speaking countries. Website content was analysed using three checklists developed for the purpose of this study - Biopsychosocial information categorisation checklist and scoring criteria; pain biology information checklist; and the inaccurate information checklist. Website quality was identified by the presence of an Health on the Net certification (HONcode).
Of the fifteen websites analysed, the content of 26.7% of websites was classified as 'biomedical', 60% 'limited psychosocial' and 13.3% 'reasonable psychosocial'; 20% included information on pain biology; 46.7% inaccurately implied pain to be equal to tissue damage and 46.7% implied pathways specific to pain transmission; 40% were HONcode certified.
Online LBP information retrieved through a Google search has limited to no integration of psychosocial or pain biology information. The focus on tissue pathology is further supported by the inaccurate descriptions of pain as equal to tissue damage and as an input to the central nervous system (CNS). Online LBP information needs to be guided by criteria more sensitive to the psychosocial contributors to pain.
The online LBP information retrieved from a Google search needs to be guided by information more sensitive to the psychosocial contributors to pain and disability. This study also highlights the presence of inaccurate information that implied pain as a measure of tissue damage or as an input to the nervous system.
（1）制定一个检查表来评估生物心理社会下腰痛（LBP）在线信息的代表性；（2）分析从谷歌搜索中获取的公众可访问的 LBP 在线信息，以评估心理社会因素与传统生物医学解释 LBP 的方法相结合的程度；（3）网站是否使用疼痛生物学信息来教育 LBP；（4）任何关于 LBP 机制的不准确或错误信息；（5）根据既定的质量健康信息基准认证的网站数量。
使用六个主要英语国家的谷歌搜索引擎进行在线搜索。使用为研究目的开发的三个检查表分析网站内容 - 生物心理社会信息分类检查表和评分标准；疼痛生物学信息检查表；不准确信息检查表。通过存在健康网络认证（HONcode）来确定网站质量。
在所分析的 15 个网站中，26.7%的网站内容被归类为“生物医学”，60%为“有限的心理社会”，13.3%为“合理的心理社会”；20%的网站包含疼痛生物学信息；46.7%的网站不准确地暗示疼痛等同于组织损伤，46.7%的网站暗示特定于疼痛传递的途径；40%的网站获得 HONcode 认证。
通过谷歌搜索检索到的 LBP 在线信息几乎没有或没有整合心理社会或疼痛生物学信息。对组织病理学的关注进一步得到了不准确的疼痛描述的支持，即疼痛等同于组织损伤，并且是中枢神经系统（CNS）的输入。在线 LBP 信息需要由更敏感的疼痛心理社会因素的标准来指导。
从谷歌搜索中检索到的在线 LBP 信息需要由更敏感的疼痛和残疾心理社会因素的信息来指导。本研究还强调了存在不准确的信息，即暗示疼痛是组织损伤的一种衡量标准，或者是神经系统的一种输入。
