Optimize Your First Impression: A Comparison of the Aesthetic Websites of Private Practices and Academic Institutions.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: An aesthetic surgery offering within academic programs has positive financial and educational implications. To compete with private practices, academic institutions must view their website as integral to patient recruitment. OBJECTIVE: This study examines the aesthetic surgery websites of academic and private practices to compare objective website characteristics. METHODS: Integrated plastic surgery programs with an aesthetic surgery website were matched with nearby private practices offering cosmetic surgery. Data was collected from websites, including information about procedures, media, surgeon characteristics, design, reputation, finances, and readability, and compared using Chi-square and T tests. RESULTS: The websites of 68 academic institutions (AP) and 68 location-matched private practices (PP) were examined. Fourteen (17.07%) programs did not have a website. Private practice websites provided information about a greater number of procedures (mean AP 21.82, PP 27.04, p = 0.013), preparation for surgery (AP 52.94%, PP 83.82%, p < 0.001), and expectations after surgery (AP 70.59%, PP 88.24%, p = 0.01). Board certification was listed more frequently for private practices (AP 87%, PP 98%, p = 0.01). Academic websites were more likely to discuss research (AP 76%, PP 57.35%, p = 0.02). There was no significant difference in the readability of AP and PP websites (mean SMOG AP 7.70, PP 7.19, p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: This work demonstrates a significant content gap between private and academic aesthetic websites and serves as an action item for institutions to enhance their online presence. In a field traditionally associated with high overhead costs, website modifications represent a cost-effective way for academic practices to increase their appeal in the cosmetic surgery market. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .