The objective of the current study was to evaluate the quality of the information provided in YouTubeTM videos on phimosis. The term “phimosis” was searched on YouTubeTM, 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 YouTubeTM is low. Therefore, at present, YouTubeTM 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.
Analysis of quality information provided by “Dr. YouTubeTM” on Phimosis / Cilio, S.; Colla Ruvolo, C.; Turco, C.; Creta, M.; Capece, M.; La Rocca, R.; Celentano, G.; Califano, G.; Morra, S.; Melchionna, A.; Mangiapia, F.; Crocetto, F.; Verze, P.; Palmieri, A.; Imbimbo, C.; Mirone, V.. - In: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF IMPOTENCE RESEARCH. - ISSN 0955-9930. - (2022). [10.1038/s41443-022-00557-5]
Analysis of quality information provided by “Dr. YouTubeTM” on Phimosis
Creta M.;Califano G.;Morra S.;Melchionna A.;Mangiapia F.;Crocetto F.;Verze P.;Imbimbo C.;Mirone V.
2022
Abstract
The objective of the current study was to evaluate the quality of the information provided in YouTubeTM videos on phimosis. The term “phimosis” was searched on YouTubeTM, 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 YouTubeTM is low. Therefore, at present, YouTubeTM 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.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
