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 median 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 misinformation 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.

Could YouTubeTM encourage men on prostate checks? A contemporary analysis / Morra, S.; Napolitano, L.; Ruvolo, C. C.; Celentano, G.; La Rocca, R.; Capece, M.; Creta, M.; Passaro, F.; Di Bello, F.; Cirillo, L.; Turco, C.; Mauro, E. D.; Pezone, G.; Fraia, A.; Mangiapia, F.; Fusco, F.; Mirone, V.; Califano, G.; Longo, N.. - In: ARCHIVIO ITALIANO DI UROLOGIA ANDROLOGIA. - ISSN 1124-3562. - 94:3(2022), pp. 285-290. [10.4081/aiua.2022.3.285]

Could YouTubeTM encourage men on prostate checks? A contemporary analysis

Morra S.
Primo
;
Napolitano L.;Celentano G.;La Rocca R.;Capece M.;Creta M.;Passaro F.;Di Bello F.;Cirillo L.;Turco C.;Pezone G.;Fraia A.;Mangiapia F.;Fusco F.;Mirone V.;Califano G.;Longo N.
2022

Abstract

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 median 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 misinformation 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.
2022
Could YouTubeTM encourage men on prostate checks? A contemporary analysis / Morra, S.; Napolitano, L.; Ruvolo, C. C.; Celentano, G.; La Rocca, R.; Capece, M.; Creta, M.; Passaro, F.; Di Bello, F.; Cirillo, L.; Turco, C.; Mauro, E. D.; Pezone, G.; Fraia, A.; Mangiapia, F.; Fusco, F.; Mirone, V.; Califano, G.; Longo, N.. - In: ARCHIVIO ITALIANO DI UROLOGIA ANDROLOGIA. - ISSN 1124-3562. - 94:3(2022), pp. 285-290. [10.4081/aiua.2022.3.285]
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11588/973386
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact