Quality and content issues

THE FRONT OFFICE Websites Quality and content issues Background.—Web sites offer dentists an important way to attract new patients and provide information and market products to existing ones. Many patients use the Internet daily, often to research dental or medical conditions. Web sites can help develop professional branding, which offers a competitive advantage and may ensure a more predictable patient flow. To maximize the potential of a Web site, it must be marketed and well optimized. The quality and content of dental practice Web sites were investigated using an audit framework based on regulations, guidance, and expert advice for United Kingdom (UK) dental practice Web sites. Methods.—The audit framework analyzed data from a random sample of 150 UK dental practices. Results.—Thirty-five percent of the dental practices had Web sites. However, many members of the dental office staff were unaware of the Web site or its address. In addition, a common misunderstanding was the difference between an e-mail address and a Web site address. Often essential information, such as the dentist’s name, qualifications, and membership in the General Dental Council (GDC), was missing. Only 19% of the Web sites had a link to the GDC Web site; only 4% had GDC contact details on their Web site. A mere 8% mentioned that dentists must follow the rules governing the profession. Technically, only 8% of the Web sites mentioned when the site was last updated. Only 11% of the sites complied fully with the guideline of the Disability Rights Commission, which recommends having sufficient contrast between foreground and background areas and having a text equivalent for all nontext elements. Content considerations included specialist claims, evidence citation for claims, fee information, and service information. Only specialists on the specialist register are permitted to advertise as specialists, yet phrases were often used to imply that practitioners were specialists when they had not met the qualifications. Skill levels were sometimes difficult to discern. Claims made by the dentist must be supported by available evidence; yet, the two sites that made

66

Dental Abstracts

such claims cited no source and gave no further explanation. Fee information was included on 49% of the Web sites, usually as a ‘‘from’’ price, which allows the practice to charge more for more complex cases. However, this is less useful to patients who desire to know the true cost of their treatment. Eighty-seven percent of the Web sites offered cosmetic dentistry and 89% offered tooth whitening despite controversy concerning its legality. Botox was promoted by 25% of the sites even though advertising prescription-only medications is illegal. Optimization was poor for many Web sites. Only 66% of the Web sites appeared in the first 20 results of a UK Google search for ‘‘dental practice’’ including the relevant area or town. Only 28% of the Web sites were listed inYell.com. Discussion.—Few of the dental practice Web sites surveyed conformed fully to the regulations governing their development. In addition, few of the sites offered all of the important information patients generally seek. Many of the sites were poorly optimized, making it difficult for patients to find the Web site.

Clinical Significance.—Web site development is a skill that is often best left to professionals. As this study illustrates, there are issues with content and optimization that can easily be mismanaged, even causing legal difficulties. Practitioners need to do their homework and employ specialist services to enhance the usefulness of this tool.

Nichols LC, Hassall D: Quality and content of dental practice websites. Br Dent J 210:E11, 2011 Reprints available from LC Nichols, The Fountain Dental Practice, 155 Malden Rd, New Malden, Surrey KT3 6AA; e-mail: [email protected]