Skip to main content

Table 1 Credibility of sources of online calcaneal apophysitis

From: International differences and inaccuracies in the public advertising about calcaneal apophysitis: an audit of websites originating in Australia, UK and USA

 

Total

N (%)

Australia

n (%)

UK

n (%)

USA

n (%)

Publisher

N = 150

n = 50

n = 50

n = 50

 Government/Public Health Service/ Hospital

31 (21%)

4 (8%)

14 (28%)

13 (26%)

 Health professional/ group private practice/peak body

118 (79%)

46 (92%)

35 (70%)

37 (74%)

 Other*

1 (< 1%)

0 (0%)

1 (2%)

0 (0%)

Publication date

N = 150

n = 50

n = 50

n = 50

 Publication or review date present

75 (50%)

26 (52%)

25 (50%)

24 (48%)

 Published or reviewed in last 5 years

57 (38%)

20 (40%)

22 (44%)

15 (30%)

Single health profession authoring information

N = 101

n = 23

n = 31

n = 47

 Medical health professionala

19 (19%)

1 (4%)

4 (13%)

14 (30%)

 Podiatrist

60 (59%)

18 (79%)

12 (39%)

30 (64%)

 Physiotherapist

18 (18%)

4 (18%)

13 (42%)

1 (2%)

 Other Health Professionalb

4 (4%)

0 (0%)

2 (6%)

2 (4%)

  1. *Journalist
  2. aSports physicians, Rheumatologists, Family doctors or general practitioners, Orthopaedic surgeons with or without paediatric subspecialities
  3. bNurses, physician assistants, osteopath and sports therapist