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.
Testicular cancer and YouTube: What do you expect from a social media platform? / Di Bello, Francesco; Collà Ruvolo, Claudia; Cilio, Simone; La Rocca, Roberto; Capece, Marco; Creta, Massimiliano; Celentano, Giuseppe; Califano, Gianluigi; Morra, Simone; Iacovazzo, Carmine; Coviello, Antonio; Buonanno, Pasquale; Fusco, Ferdinando; Imbimbo, Ciro; Mirone, Vincenzo; Longo, Nicola. - In: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY. - ISSN 0919-8172. - 29:7(2022), pp. 685-691. [10.1111/iju.14871]
Testicular cancer and YouTube: What do you expect from a social media platform?
Di Bello, Francesco;Collà Ruvolo, Claudia;Cilio, Simone;La Rocca, Roberto;Capece, Marco;Creta, Massimiliano;Celentano, Giuseppe;Califano, Gianluigi;Morra, Simone;Iacovazzo, Carmine;Coviello, Antonio;Buonanno, Pasquale;Imbimbo, Ciro;Mirone, Vincenzo;Longo, Nicola
2022
Abstract
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.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.