Quality of bladder cancer treatment information on YouTube: May the user's profile affect the quality of results?

IF 1.4 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia Pub Date : 2024-02-16 DOI:10.4081/aiua.2024.12179
Pier Paolo Prontera, Francesca Romana Prusciano, Marco Lattarulo, Emanuele Utano, Francesco Schiralli, Carmine Sciorio, Lorenzo Romano, Francesco Saverio Grossi
{"title":"Quality of bladder cancer treatment information on YouTube: May the user's profile affect the quality of results?","authors":"Pier Paolo Prontera, Francesca Romana Prusciano, Marco Lattarulo, Emanuele Utano, Francesco Schiralli, Carmine Sciorio, Lorenzo Romano, Francesco Saverio Grossi","doi":"10.4081/aiua.2024.12179","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Social media are widely used information tools, including the medical/health field. Unfortunately, the levels of misinformation on these platforms seem to be high, with a medium-low quality of the proposed content, as evidenced by previous studies. You Tube is one of the most important platforms for audio/video content. It shows content to users through a recommendation algorithm system.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We have classified in two cohorts the first results obtained by researching \"bladder tumor treatment\" on You Tube through two different user profiles: \"Cohort A\" with a not logged-in session in incognito mode (46 videos enrolled) and \"Cohort B\" with a logged-in session with a physician profile (50 videos enrolled). The videos were evaluated using validated instruments such as DISCERN and PEMAT-AV Furthermore, we used a Likert's scale for the evaluation of levels of misinformation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall quality of information was moderate to poor (DISCERN 3) in 54% of Cohort A and 24% of Cohort B. Moreover, a high degree of misinformation (Likert score 3) was found in 52% of Cohort A cases and 32% of Cohort B.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Levels of misinformation in both cohorts are positively correlated to the number of views per month. Globally, the levels of information quality, understandability and actionability are lower for the results obtained from searches performed with anonymous user profile (Cohort A).</p>","PeriodicalId":46900,"journal":{"name":"Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2024.12179","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Social media are widely used information tools, including the medical/health field. Unfortunately, the levels of misinformation on these platforms seem to be high, with a medium-low quality of the proposed content, as evidenced by previous studies. You Tube is one of the most important platforms for audio/video content. It shows content to users through a recommendation algorithm system.

Materials and methods: We have classified in two cohorts the first results obtained by researching "bladder tumor treatment" on You Tube through two different user profiles: "Cohort A" with a not logged-in session in incognito mode (46 videos enrolled) and "Cohort B" with a logged-in session with a physician profile (50 videos enrolled). The videos were evaluated using validated instruments such as DISCERN and PEMAT-AV Furthermore, we used a Likert's scale for the evaluation of levels of misinformation.

Results: Overall quality of information was moderate to poor (DISCERN 3) in 54% of Cohort A and 24% of Cohort B. Moreover, a high degree of misinformation (Likert score 3) was found in 52% of Cohort A cases and 32% of Cohort B.

Conclusions: Levels of misinformation in both cohorts are positively correlated to the number of views per month. Globally, the levels of information quality, understandability and actionability are lower for the results obtained from searches performed with anonymous user profile (Cohort A).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
YouTube 上膀胱癌治疗信息的质量:用户资料是否会影响结果的质量?
背景:社交媒体是广泛使用的信息工具,包括医疗/健康领域。不幸的是,这些平台上的错误信息水平似乎很高,而所建议内容的质量却处于中等偏下水平,这一点已被先前的研究证明。You Tube 是最重要的音频/视频内容平台之一。它通过推荐算法系统向用户展示内容:我们通过两种不同的用户特征,将在优酷上研究 "膀胱肿瘤治疗 "所获得的第一批结果分为两组:"队列 A "在隐身模式下未登录会话(注册了 46 个视频),"队列 B "在医生配置文件下登录会话(注册了 50 个视频)。我们使用 DISCERN 和 PEMAT-AV 等有效工具对视频进行了评估,并使用李克特量表对错误信息的程度进行了评估:此外,我们还发现 52% 的 A 组案例和 32% 的 B 组案例存在严重的信息错误(Likert 评分 3 分):结论:两个队列中的错误信息水平与每月浏览量呈正相关。从全球范围来看,使用匿名用户配置文件进行搜索所获得的结果(群组 A)的信息质量、可理解性和可操作性水平较低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
35.70%
发文量
72
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
"Bottoms-up" minimally-invasive approach to inguinal lymph node dissection for penile cancer management. A single-center comparative study versus open approach and review. A systematic review and meta-analysis of short- and long-term complications of early versus delayed penile prosthesis implantation in patients with ischemic priapism. Adverse events related to laser fibers and laser machines during ureteroscopy and stone lithotripsy: Insights from an updated 10-year analysis of the US MAUDE database. Can serum 17-hydroxy progesterone predict an improvement in semen parameters following micro-varicocelectomy? A prospective study. CFTR Exon 10 deleterious mutations in patients with congenital bilateral absence of vas deferens in a cohort of Pakistani patients.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1