Testicular cancer and YouTube: What do you expect from a social media platform?
YouTube
fertility
patient information
social media
testis cancer
urology
Journal
International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association
ISSN: 1442-2042
Titre abrégé: Int J Urol
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 9440237
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2022
07 2022
Historique:
revised:
11
02
2022
received:
12
01
2022
accepted:
08
03
2022
pubmed:
24
3
2022
medline:
7
7
2022
entrez:
23
3
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate the quality information on testicular cancer uploaded on YouTube™ videos. 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. 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). 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.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
685-691Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Japanese Urological Association.
Références
Laguna MP, Pizzocaro G, Klepp O, Algaba F, Kisbenedek L, Leiva O. EAU guidelines on testicular cancer 2021. Eur. Urol. 2001; 40: 102-10.
Gilligan T, Lin DW, Aggarwal R et al. Testicular cancer, version 2.2020, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J. Natl. Compr. Canc. Netw. 2019; 17: 1529-54.
American Cancer Society. Testicular cancer. [Cited 23 Apr 2021.] Available from URL: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/testicular-cancer.html
Gurney JK, Florio AA, Znaor A et al. International trends in the incidence of testicular cancer: lessons from 35 years and 41 countries. Eur. Urol. 2019; 76: 615-23.
Skoogh J, Steineck G, Johansson B, Wilderäng U, Stierner U. Psychological needs when diagnosed with testicular cancer: findings from a population-based study with long-term follow-up. BJU Int. 2013; 111: 1287-93.
Bender JL, Wiljer D, To MJ et al. Testicular cancer survivors' supportive care needs and use of online support: a cross-sectional survey. Support. Care Cancer. 2012; 20: 2737-46.
Alexis O, Adeleye AO, Worsley AJ. Men's experiences of surviving testicular cancer: an integrated literature review. J. Cancer Surviv. 2020; 14: 284-93.
YouTube. YouTube for press. [Cited 20 Apr 2021.] Available from URL: https://blog.youtube/press/
Creta M, Sagnelli C, Celentano G et al. SARS-CoV-2 infection affects the lower urinary tract and male genital system: a systematic review. J. Med. Virol. 2021; 93: 3133-42.
Teoh JY-C, Ong WLK, Gonzalez-Padilla D et al. A global survey on the impact of COVID-19 on urological services. Eur. Urol. 2020; 78: 265-75.
Bhatt NR, Czarniecki SW, Borgmann H et al. A systematic review of the use of social Media for Dissemination of clinical practice guidelines. Eur. Urol. Focus. 2020; 7: 1195-204.
Loeb S, Taylor J, Borin JF et al. Fake news: spread of misinformation about urological conditions on social media. Eur. Urol. Focus. 2020; 6: 437-9.
Erdem MN, Karaca S. Evaluating the accuracy and quality of the information in kyphosis videos shared on YouTube. Spine 2018; 43: E1334-9.
Shoemaker SJ, Wolf MS, Brach C. Development of the patient education materials assessment tool (PEMAT): a new measure of understandability and actionability for print and audiovisual patient information. Patient Educ. Couns. 2014; 96: 395-403.
Shepperd S, Charnock D, Cook A. A 5-star system for rating the quality of information based on DISCERN. Health Info. Libr. J. 2002; 19: 201-5.
Loeb S, Sengupta S, Butaney M et al. Dissemination of Misinformative and biased information about prostate cancer on YouTube. Eur. Urol. 2019; 75: 564-7.
Iammarino NK, Scardino PT. Testicular cancer: the role of the primary care physician in prevention and early detection. Tex. Med. 1991; 87: 66-71.
Shen AH, Howell D, Edwards E, Warde P, Matthew A, Jones JM. The experience of patients with early-stage testicular cancer during the transition from active treatment to follow-up surveillance. Urol. Oncol. 2016; 34: 168.e11-20.
Parekh NV, Lundy SD, Vij SC. Fertility considerations in men with testicular cancer. Transl. Androl. Urol. 2020; 9: S14-23.
Huang MM, Winoker JS, Allaf ME, Matlaga BR, Koo K. Evidence-based quality and accuracy of YouTube videos about nephrolithiasis. BJU Int. 2021; 127: 247-53.
Langford AT, Roberts T, Gupta J, Orellana KT, Loeb S. Impact of the internet on patient-physician communication. Eur. Urol. Focus. 2020; 6: 440-4.
Tanwar R, Khattar N, Sood R, Makkar A. Benign prostatic hyperplasia related content on YouTube: unregulated and concerning. Recenti Prog. Med. 2015; 106: 337-41.
Duran MB, Kizilkan Y. Quality analysis of testicular cancer videos on YouTube. Andrologia 2021; 19: e14118.
Capece M, Di Giovanni A, Cirigliano L et al. YouTube as a source of information on penile prosthesis. Andrologia 2021; 14: e14246.
Gerundo G, Collà Ruvolo C, Puzone B et al. Personal protective equipment in Covid-19: evidence-based quality and analysis of YouTube videos after one year of pandemic. Am. J. Infect. Control. 2021; 50: 300-5.
Loeb S, Reines K, Abu-Salha Y et al. Quality of bladder cancer information on YouTube. Eur. Urol. 2021; 79: 56-9.
Culha Y, Seyhan Ak E, Merder E, Ariman A, Culha MG. Analysis of the YouTube videos on pelvic floor muscle exercise training in terms of their reliability and quality. Int. Urol. Nephrol. 2021; 53: 1-6.
Morra S, Collà Ruvolo C, Napolitano L et al. YouTube™ as a source of information on bladder pain syndrome: a contemporary analysis. Neurourol. Urodyn. 2021; 41: 237-45.
Melchionna A, Collà Ruvolo C, Capece M et al. Testicular pain and youtube™: are uploaded videos a reliable source to get information? Int. J. Impot. Res. 2022; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-022-00536-w.
Mundluru SN, Werbaneth K, Therkelsen KE, Larson AR, Santini VE. ‘But doctor, I googled it!’: the ‘three Rs’ of managing patients in the age of information overload. Clin. Dermatol. 2019; 37: 74-7.