Recommendations on patient-facing websites regarding diagnostic imaging for low back, knee, and shoulder pain: A scoping review

Andrew Cuff; Thomas Jesson; Gillian Yeowell; Lisa Dikomitis; Nadine E Foster; Chris Littlewood

doi:10.1016/j.pecinn.2022.100040

Recommendations on patient-facing websites regarding diagnostic imaging for low back, knee, and shoulder pain: A scoping review

PEC Innov. 2022 Apr 19:1:100040. doi: 10.1016/j.pecinn.2022.100040. eCollection 2022 Dec.

Authors

Andrew Cuff^{1

2}, Thomas Jesson², Gillian Yeowell¹, Lisa Dikomitis³, Nadine E Foster^{4

5}, Chris Littlewood⁶

Affiliations

¹ Faculty of Health, Psychology and Social Care, Manchester Metropolitan University, Brooks Building, 53 Bonsall Street, M15 6GX, UK.
² Connect Health, The Light Box, Quorum Business Park, Benton Lane, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, NE13 8EU, UK.
³ Kent and Medway Medical School, University of Kent and Canterbury Christ Church University, UK.
⁴ Versus Arthritis Primary Care Centre, School of Medicine, David Weatherall Building, Keele University, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK.
⁵ STARS Education and Research Alliance, Surgical Treatment and Rehabilitation Service, The University of Queensland and Metro North Health, Queensland, Australia.
⁶ Faculty of Health, Social Care and Medicine, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, Lancashire, L39 4QP, UK.

Abstract

Objective: To describe and synthesise the content of public-facing websites regarding the use of diagnostic imaging for adults with lower back pain, knee, and shoulder pain.

Methods: Scoping review conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidance. A Google search was performed to identify public-facing websites that were either United Kingdom-based, or National Health Service affiliated. The DISCERN tool was used to appraise website quality before information regarding the use of imaging was synthesised using thematic analysis.

Results: Eighty-six websites were included, with 48 making reference to the use of imaging. The information within the majority (n = 43) of public-facing websites aligns with best available evidence. Where there is inconsistency, this may be explained by lower website quality. Three themes were apparent regarding the use of imaging - imaging to inform diagnosis and management; imaging in context; patient experience and expectations.

Conclusion: The recommendations and rationale for use of imaging contained within public-facing websites does not appear to justify the increase in imaging rates for musculoskeletal pain in the UK.

Innovation: Publicly available information following a novel search strategy, is largely aligned with best evidence, further understanding is required to determine reasons for requesting imaging from a patient and clinician perspective.

Keywords: Diagnostic Imaging; Knee Pain; Low Back Pain; Public-facing websites; Shoulder Pain.

Publication types

Review