Testicular pain and youtube™: are uploaded videos a reliable source to get information?

Social media and urology: The good, the bad and the ugly

Social media (SoMe) is now a core part of modern-day life with increased use among both patients and urologists. The interplay of SoMe between these two parties is complex. From a patient perspective, SoMe platforms can serve as educational tools as well as communication portals to support networks and patient communities. However, studies report the educational value of content online is often poor and may contain misinformation. For urologists, SoMe can lead to research collaborations, networking and educational content but areas of concern include the potential negative impact SoMe can have on mental health and sharing of patient images without appropriate consent. This review serves to provide an overview of the interaction between SoMe and urology practice and provide practical guidance to navigating it.

Assessment and Acquisition of Knowledge Regarding Urinary Tract Infection Among Adult Women in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To assess baseline UTI knowledge, interest in health resources, and platform preferences for information acquisition and dissemination.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Adult women who had a UTI in the past 12 months were recruited from Researchmatch.org to participate in a web-based quantitative study. Women with recurrent UTI (rUTI) were compared to women with a history of UTI (without rUTI).

RESULTS

Six hundred and eighty-seven women were included in the study of which 27.4% (N = 188) had rUTI. Regarding knowledge, significantly more women without rUTI believe UTIs are caused by lack of cleanliness and that most women suffer from UTIs. Significantly more women with rUTI believe that UTIs are inherited and that getting older is associated with getting more UTIs. Regarding barriers to health information, significantly more women without rUTI feel that information is too complex and language barriers exist. More than 90% of subjects utilize their healthcare provider (HCP) for health information and most prefer office-based HCPs for health information. More than 50% of women with rUTI would like to receive UTI health updates.

CONCLUSION

Misinformation exists regarding causes, management, and prevention of UTIs. This study identified perceived barriers as well as preferred educational platforms with the hope that this will drive improvements in UTI-related health education.

YouTube™ as a source of information on prostatitis: a quality and reliability analysis

It was aimed to analyze the YouTube™ videos on prostatitis regarding their source, content, and information included. The term "prostatitis" was searched by relevance and the first 200 video links and features were recorded. Using the 5-point modified DISCERN tool, Global Quality Score (GQS), and Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) score, the quality and reliability of the information were assessed by two urologists. Inter-rater agreement for DISCERN, JAMA, and GQS had Cohen's kappa coefficients of 0.883, 0.887, and 0.885, respectively. The most common source of upload was doctors/medical institutions (33.0%), and the majority of the content was about general information (27.0%). The mean modified DISCERN, GQS and JAMA scores were 3.24 ± 1.23 (1.00-5.00), 3.25 ± 1.26 (1.00-5.00) and 2.17 ± 1.36 (0.00-4.00), respectively. These scores were correlated with each other (r = 0.914, p < 0.001 between JAMA and GQS; r = 0.954, p < 0.001 between JAMA and modified DISCERN; and r = 0.885, p < 0.001 between GQS and modified DISCERN, Spearman test) and were the highest in the videos uploaded by doctors/medical institutions (p < 0.001, Kruskal-Wallis test). Of the videos, 25.5% were poor, 30.5% were moderate and 44.0% were high quality. The high quality videos were significantly shorter than those with poor quality (p = 0.039, Kruskal-Wallis test). The poor quality videos had the highest view ratio (50.49 ± 127.74 (0.03-618.91), p = 0.036, Kruskal-Wallis test). Most YouTube™ videos on prostatitis are short and high quality videos uploaded by doctors/medical institutions. However, these videos have less view ratios than those with poor quality.

#Penisenlargement on Instagram: a mixed-methods study

This study aims to analyze the reliability of #penisenlargement hashtag on Instagram and to investigate how young adult men perceive their penis size in real-world settings after being exposed to #penisenlargement Instagram postings. In the first phase, the credibility of the 100 most recent publicly accessible postings with the #penisenlargement hashtag was evaluated. Also, the last 1000 posts related to the same hashtag were evaluated to determine follower reach and engagement impacts. In the second phase, men were exposed to the #penisenlargement hashtag for 6 months and completed an online questionnaire examining their motives to undergo augmentation. Only a few (n = 6, 1%) posts had reliable information. At the time of questionnaire completion, participants reported a substantial drop in their genital self-image (22.3 ± 3.6 to 17.8 ± 3.0, p < 0.001) and a significant increase in their media exposure (1.24 ± 1.05 to 2.3 ± 0.74, p < 0.001) compared to their pre-Instagram exposure levels. The most prevalent reason for pursuing penis enlargement following Instagram exposure was to enhance self-perception and confidence. Our findings indicate that penis enlargement methods on Instagram are mostly unreliable. In addition, being exposed to posts pertaining to "penis enlargement" the hashtag can encourage men to seek penis augmentation surgery.

Users' experience with health-related content on YouTube: an exploratory study

BACKGROUND

This study focuses on health-related content (HRC) on YouTube and addresses the issue of misinformation on this platform. While previous research centered on content evaluations by experts, this study takes a user-centered approach and aims to explore users' experiences with and perceptions of HRC videos and to establish links between these perceptions and some socio-demographic characteristics including age, gender, profession, and educational level.

METHODS

A quantitative research design was used in the study. 3,000 YouTube users responded to a 35-item anonymous questionnaire to collect information about the content they watch toward decision-making, their perceptions of the usefulness and bias of this content, what they identify as quality indicators for HRC, and what they recommend to improve the quality of such content on YouTube. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, frequency, and correlation analyses.

RESULTS

The results reveal that 87.6 percent (n=2630) of the participants watch HRC on YouTube, and 84.7 percent (n=2542) make decisions based on what they watch. Exercise and bodybuilding videos are the most popular, with over half of the participants watching them. 40 percent of the users watch YouTube videos to decide whether to consult a doctor or adopt specific health-related practices. In contrast to evaluations by experts in previous studies, most respondents perceive HRC videos on YouTube as useful and do not find connections between video quality and surface features like the number of views and likes. Weak or no correlations were observed between the perceived usefulness of HRC videos and age, gender, profession, or educational level. Participants' recommendations for enhancing HRC quality align with previous research findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Users turn to YouTube not only for health information but also as a decision-making tool. Combined with their generally positive attitudes towards content quality on this platform, this can have significant consequences for their health. Follow-up studies are needed to get more insights into decision-making behaviors and how users assess their decisions in retrospect.

The spreading information of YouTube videos on Phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors: a worrisome picture from one of the most consulted internet source

Several previous studies on YouTubeTM information on medical topics have already been published. The current study aimed to evaluate the quality information of YouTubeTM videos on Phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors (PDE5-is). A systematic search on YouTube™ was conducted using 30 keyword combinations. For each keyword's combination, the first 50 videos were recorded. The quality of videos on YouTube™ was assessed with Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for audio-visual content (PEMAT A/V), DISCERN score and a specified created Misinformation tool. According to the selection criteria, 229 YouTube™ videos were suitable for the analyses. Videos were stratified according to the five main identified topics: sildenafil [n = 98; 42.79%] vs tadalafil [n = 50; 21.83%] vs vardenafil [n = 44;19.21%] vs avanafil [n = 17; 7.42%] vs PDE5-is in general [n = 20; 8.73%]. The median overall PEMAT A/V Understandability score and Actionability score were 55% (interquartile range [IQR]: 42-75) and 0% (IQR = 0-67), respectively. Specifically, according to our stratification, YouTube Videos on avanafil reached higher values of both Understandability and Actionability (72.7% and 66.7, respectively) in contrast to other categories. According to DISCERN tool, the total overall median score was 29.5 (IQR = 18-41). According to Misinformation scale, the item 1 ('sexual stimulation') harboured an overall median score of 2 (IQR = 1-2); the item 2 ('side effects') an overall median score of 2 (IQR = 1-3); the item 3 ('treatment choices') an overall median score of 1 (IQR = 1-2); the item 4 ('contraindications') an overall median score of 2 (IQR = 1-2). YouTube™ is a fast and open-access source for mass information. The overall quality of the PDE5-is contents provided is sadly unsatisfactory. Nowadays, YouTube™ cannot be recommended as a reliable source of information on PDE5-is.

Telemedicine and YouTube™: Video quality analysis before and after COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVE

To assess the quality content of YouTube™ videos on telemedicine during COVID-19 pandemic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

First, the frequency of worldwide YouTube™ and Google™ searches for telemedicine was analyzed. Second, we queried YouTube™ with telemedicine-related terms. Third, the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Audiovisual Materials (PEMAT A/V), the Global Quality Score (GQS), and the Misinformation tool were used for the quality assessment.

RESULTS

According to selection criteria, 129 videos were collected for the analysis. From January 2018 to January 2022, the peak relative interest on YouTube™ and Google™ occurred in March 2020. Of all, 27.1 and 72.9% were uploaded before (Jan 2018-Feb 2020) and after (Mar 2020-Mar 2022) the COVID-19 outbreak, respectively. According to the PEMAT A/V, the overall median understandability and actionability was 50.0% (33.3 [IQR 0-66.7] vs 50.0 [27.1-75], p = 0.2) and 66.7% (63.6 [IQR 50.0-75.7] vs 67.9 [50.0-79.2],p = 0.6), respectively. According to GQS, 3.9%, 17.8%, 24.0%, 26.4% and 27.9% were classified as excellent, good, medium, generally poor, and poor-quality videos, respectively. The highest rate of poor-quality videos was recorded in videos uploaded before COVID-19 pandemic (37.1 vs 24.5%). According to overall misinformation score, a higher score was recorded for the videos uploaded after COVID-19 pandemic (1.8 [IQR 1.4-2.3] vs 2.2 [1.8-2.8], p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The interest in telemedicine showed a significant peak when the COVID-19 pandemic was declared. However, the contents provided on YouTubeTM were not informative enough. In the future, official medical institutions should standardize telemedicine regulation and online content to reduce the widespread of misleading information.

Assessment of quality, absorbability, and educational value of YouTube videos regarding ankle fractures

Aims & objectives

YouTube is a non-peer-reviewed platform with a large library of healthcare-related videos which attempt to provide educational content. The goal of this study is to analyze the quality, absorbability, and educational content of videos available to patients on YouTube regarding ankle fractures.

Materials & methods

On May 31, 2022, over 550 videos populated the initial search of "ankle fracture" within YouTube's platform. The first 100 videos were reviewed, and 62 videos were included in the final analysis. Video characteristics were recorded and evaluated. Videos were assessed using three objective scoring systems: (1) the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, (2) the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for audio and visual materials (PEMAT), and (3) the novel Ankle Fracture Content Score (AFCS).

Results

Each scoring system had high internal consistency and interrater reliability. The mean JAMA, PEMAT understandability, PEMAT actionability, and AFCS were 2.92, 61.85%, 16.38%, and 4.67, respectively. No association was seen between video popularity metrics and quality of information. The understandability of the patient-targeted videos was greater than those targeted at healthcare professionals (P = 0.049).

Conclusion

The information regarding ankle fractures available on YouTube for patient education is poor with no correlation between quality and popularity. This study illustrates the need for future collaboration between YouTube and trusted medical societies to provide patients with the highest quality information.

Mental Health of Prostate Cancer Patients: Content Review on YouTubeTM

The aim of this study is to evaluate YouTube™ content in terms of the quality of information available about prostate cancer (PCa) in relation to incidence, symptomatology, and potential treatments for patients' mental health. We searched on YouTube™ for terms related to mental health combined with those relating to prostate cancer. Tools for audio-visual-content PEMAT A/V, Global Quality Score, and DISCERN score were applied for the assessment of videos' quality. A total of 67 videos were eligible. Most of the analyzed YouTube™ videos were created by physicians (52.2%) in contrast to other author categories (48.8%). According to the PEMAT A/V, the median score for Understandability was 72.7% and the overall median score for Actionability was 66.7%; the median DISCERN score was 47, which correspond to a fair quality. Only videos focusing on the topic "Psychological Effects and PCa treatment" were significantly more accurate. The General Quality Score revealed that the majority of YouTube™ videos were rated as "generally poor" (21, 31.3%) or "poor" (12, 17.9%). The results suggest that the content of YouTube™ videos is neither exhaustive nor reliable in the current state, illustrating a general underestimation of the mental health of prostate cancer patients. A multidisciplinary agreement to establish quality standards and improve communication about mental health care is needed.

Social Media Content on Immunology: Is an Assessment by the Scientific Community Required?

In recent years, vaccines and immunotherapy have become two of the most promising and effective tools in the fight against a wide range of diseases, from the common cold to cancer [...].

Immunotherapy for Urological Tumors on YouTubeTM: An Information-Quality Analysis

BACKGROUND

YouTube^TM is an open-access source for mass information. Several previous studies of YouTube^TM videos showed a high rate of misinformation in the urological field. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the quality of information on immunotherapy (IMT) for urological tumors uploaded to YouTube^TM.

METHODS

YouTube^TM videos were searched using nine keyword combinations. The PEMAT, the DISCERN tool, and the Misinformation scale were used to assess the quality of information in YouTube^TM videos about IMT for urological tumors. Descriptive statistics and Kruskal-Wallis, Chi-square, proportion, and Pearson's tests were performed.

RESULTS

According to the selection criteria, 156 YouTube^TM videos were suitable for the analysis and stratified according to topic (urothelial carcinoma vs. renal cell cancer vs. prostate cancer vs. general information on IMT). According to PEMAT A/V, the overall Understandability score was 40% (Inter-Quartile Range [IQR]: 20-61.5) and the overall Actionability score was 0% (IQR: 0-25). According to the DISCERN tool, the overall DISCERN score was 44 (IQR: 39-53.2), defined as "fair". According to the Misinformation scale, we recorded the lowest median overall score for item 4 ("IMT in multimodality approach") and item 5 ("Future perspective").

CONCLUSIONS

YouTube^TM cannot be recommended as a reliable source of information on IMT for urological malignancies. In addition, YouTube^TM videos contributed to the spread of misinformation by underestimating the role of IMT in a multimodality approach and missing the findings of published clinical trial results.

Perceptions and attitudes toward the use of telemedicine for the postoperative outpatient urological care during the COVID-19 pandemic in an Academic Hospital in Southern Italy

INTRODUCTION

Telemedicine is a most used tools in various medical and surgical scenarios. The aim of the present study was to explore attitudes and perceptions by urologic patients toward the use of telemedicine in the context of patient-physicians communication during the post-operative follow-up in a large academic tertiary urology referral department in Italy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An anonymous questionnaire consisting of 15 multiple choice questions was designed including three sections: respondents' demographics, attitudes, and perceptions towards the use of telemedicine. Invitations to participate to this anonymous questionnaire was given to outpatients attended at Urology Department, University of Naples Federico II.

RESULTS

In total 697 responses were received (participation rate 73%). The frequency of telemedicine use was described as frequently, occasional, rarely, and never by 41.6%, 30.4%, 15.1%, and 12.6% of respondents, respectively. WhatsApp messenger used by 59.5% of respondents and telephone call (34.3%) were the most common type of tools. Satisfaction in using telemedicine was reported as very satisfied, satisfied, neutral, dissatisfied, and very dissatisfied by 39.6%,41.4%,10%,7% and 2% of respondents respectively. Overall, 43.7%% of participants individuated limited interaction and risk of misdiagnosis as the major limit of telemedicine.

CONCLUSIONS

Telemedicine represents the future of medical practice due to several benefits as well as convenience, increased access to care and decreased healthcare costs.

Could YouTubeTM encourage men on prostate checks? A contemporary analysis

Objectives: To assess YouTube™ videos’ quality on prostate checks, especially on the digital rectal exam (DRE), and to investigate if they can inform patients correctly and eradicate their beliefs and myths.Methods: A search using as keywords “digital rectal exam for prostate cancer” was performed on the YouTubeTM platform. We selected the first 100 videos. To assess video quality content, Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for audio-visual content (PEMAT A/V) and Misinformation tool were used.Results: Seventy-three videos were suitable for the analyses. The median PEMAT A/V Understandability score and PEMAT A/V Actionability score were 46.2% (interquartile range [IQR]: 30.8-76.9) and 50.0% (IQR: 25.0-75.0), respectively. The medi-an PEMAT A/V Understandability and Actionability scores were 69.2% (IQR: 46.2-88.5) vs 46.2% (IQR: 30.8-61.5) (p = 0.01) and 100.0% (IQR: 87.5-100.0) vs 25.0% (IQR: 25.0-68.8)(p < 0.001), for healthcare workers vs patients, respectively. According to the Misinformation tool, the median misinforma-tion score of the overall videos was 2.2 (IQR:1.7-2.8). According to the target audience, the misinformation score was 2.8 (IQR: 2.4-3.5) vs 2.0 (IQR: 1.5-2.8) (p = 0.02), for healthcare workers vs patients, respectively. Conclusions: Currently, based on our analyses, YouTubeTM videos’ quality on DRE resulted unsatisfactory according to the PEMAT A/V score and the Misinformation tool. Videos targeted to healthcare workers got higher quality scores if compared to videos targeted to patients. Therefore, YouTubeTM videos’ may not be considered a reliable source of information on DRE for patients.

Quality Assessment of YouTube Videos as an Information Source for Testicular Torsion

Background

Testicular torsion is an acute scrotal disease requiring urgent management, and the COVID-19 pandemic has been demonstrated to lead to poor outcomes for this disease. Presently, many people tend to seek health information via YouTube. This study aims to quantitatively assess the quality of English YouTube video content as an information source of testicular torsion.

Methods

In this cross-sectional study, a search was performed with the search term "testicular torsion" on YouTube, and the first 100 videos listed by relevance were selected for our analysis. Duplicate, non-English, videos without audio and surgical videos were excluded. Video features (duration, number of days online, views, likes, comments), source of the video, and author's country were collected. Each video included in the study was assessed using DISCERN and Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Benchmark Criteria. A correlation analysis was performed considering video features, video source, DISCERN scores and JAMA scores.

Results

A total of 66 videos were included and analyzed. The most common video content was general information, including etiology, symptoms, and treatment. The majority of videos were from education and training websites (30%), physicians (23%), and independent users (21%). The mean DISCERN and JAMA scores were 36.56 and 2.68, respectively. According to DISCERN, the quality of video uploaded by physicians was relatively high (P < 0.001), and the quality of video uploaded by independent users was relatively low (P < 0.001). The JAMA score had no relevance to the video source (P = 0.813). The correlation between the video features, DISCERN and JAMA scores was controversial by different assessment methods.

Conclusions

Despite most of the videos on YouTube being uploaded by medical or education-related authors, the overall quality was poor. The misleading, inaccurate and incomplete information may pose a health risk to the viewers, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Much effort needs to be undertaken to improve the quality of health-related videos regarding testicular torsion.

"YouTube™ as a source of information on placenta accreta: A quality analysis"

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the quality of YouTube™ videos on placenta accreta and to investigate if they can be used as a reliable source of information.

METHODS

We queried YouTube™ with terms related to placenta accreta. Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for audio-visual content (PEMAT A/V), Global Quality Score (GQS), DISCERN score and Misinformation tool were used to assess videos' quality content.

RESULTS

Sixty-four videos were suitable for the analyses. Of those, 42 (65.6%) and 22 (34.4%) were produces by healthcare works and others, respectively. The median PEMAT A/V Understandability and Actionability score was 75 and 66.7%, respectively. According to GQS, 31.2 and 45.3% videos were excellent or good and generally poor or poor, respectively. The median DISCERN score of section 1 was 27 (out of 40), of section 2 was 16 (out of 35) and of section 3 was 2 (out of 5). According to Misinformation tool, the worst described aspect was the one regarding the possible risk factor associated to placenta accreta. Performing the quality assessment according to video authoring entity, videos produced by healthcare workers harbored a higher quality content, relative to the others.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, the overall consideration of YouTube™ video content on placenta accreta is low. Societies should invest new sources in producing higher quality videos to provide a helpful tool for physician during the counselling with patients.

Analysis of quality information provided by "Dr. YouTubeTM" on Phimosis

The objective of the current study was to evaluate the quality of the information provided in YouTube^TM videos on phimosis. The term “phimosis” was searched on YouTube^TM, and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) for Audio/Visual Materials (Understandability and Actionability sections, good-quality score of minimum 70%) and misinformation scale (rated from 1 to 5) were used to assess video quality. Quality assessment was investigated over time. Of all, 60 were eligible for analysis. Healthcare providers were the authors of 75.0% of the videos, and 73.3% of the videos were patient-targeted. The median Understandability score was 42.9% (interquartile range [IQR]:34.5–58.9) and ranged from 28.6 to 42.9% (2013–2020). The median Actionability score was 50.0% (IQR:25.0–56.2) and ranged from 25.0 to 50.0% (2013–2020). The median misinformation score was 2.8/5 (IQR:1.6–3.6), and although the score fluctuated over time, the median score was 2.6 both in 2013 and in 2020. According to our results, although an increase of PEMAT over time was observed, the overall quality of the information uploaded on YouTube^TM is low. Therefore, at present, YouTube^TM cannot be recommended as a reliable source of information on phimosis. Video producers should upload higher-quality videos to help physicians and patients in the decision-making process.

Testicular cancer and YouTube: What do you expect from a social media platform?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the quality information on testicular cancer uploaded on YouTube™ videos.

METHODS

YouTube™ videos were searched using "Testicular cancer" as a keyword. The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool, the Misinformation scale, and the DISCERN tool were used to assess the quality information of YouTube™ videos on testicular cancer.

RESULTS

According to the selection criteria, 121 YouTube™ videos were collected for the analysis and stratified according to uploading year (2009-2014 vs 2015-2020). According to the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for audio-visual content, the overall Understandability score was 60% (interquartile range 45.5-75) and the overall Actionability score was 100% (interquartile range 66.7-100). According to the Misinformation scale, the lowest median was recorded for item 6 ("Effects on fertility") and the overall median Misinformation score was 2 (interquartile range 1.3-2.8). No statistically significant differences were observed according to uploading year (all P > 0.05). Of all, only 54 (44.6%) videos mentioning treatment were subsequently analyzed. Of these videos, the overall Understandability was 71.4% (interquartile range 56.3-84.6) and the overall Actionability was 100% (interquartile range 66.7-100). The overall Misinformation score was 2.8 (interquartile range 2.2-3.5). The median DISCERN score recorded for question 16 was 5 (interquartile range 3-5).

CONCLUSIONS

YouTube™ is a fast and open-access source for mass information. The overall quality of the testicular cancer contents provided is sadly unsatisfactory, in the present likewise in the past. However, YouTube™ videos mentioning treatment options showed higher quality content, than the remaining one. Nevertheless, all the videos analyzed underestimated the testicular cancer effects on fertility. Nowadays, YouTube™ cannot be recommended as a reliable source of information on testicular cancer.