A Quality and Completeness Assessment of Testicular Cancer Health Information on TikTok

Hoi Pong Nicholas Wong, Lee Jing Yang, Vikneshwaren SO Senthamil Selvan, Jamie Yong Qi Lim, W. Z. So, V. Gauhar, Ho Yee Tiong
{"title":"A Quality and Completeness Assessment of Testicular Cancer Health Information on TikTok","authors":"Hoi Pong Nicholas Wong, Lee Jing Yang, Vikneshwaren SO Senthamil Selvan, Jamie Yong Qi Lim, W. Z. So, V. Gauhar, Ho Yee Tiong","doi":"10.3390/siuj5030028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"TikTok has become a hub for easily accessible medical information. However, the quality and completeness of this information for testicular cancer has not been examined. Our study aims to assess the quality and completeness of testicular cancer information on TikTok. A search was performed on TikTok using the search terms “Testicular Cancer” and “Testicle Cancer”. Inclusion criteria encompassed videos about testicular cancer in English. We excluded non-English videos, irrelevant videos, and videos without audio. We evaluated these videos using the DISCERN instrument and a completeness assessment. A total of 361 videos were considered for screening and 116 videos were included. Of these, 57 were created by healthcare professionals (HCPs). The median video length was 40 s (5–277 s), with >25 million cumulative views and a median of 446,400 views per video. The average DISCERN score was 29.0 ± 5.7, with HCPs providing higher-quality videos than non-HCPs (30.8 vs. 5.5, p < 0.05). HCPs also had more reliable videos (21.2 vs. 18.1, p < 0.05). Overall quality levels were mostly poor or very poor (97.4%), with none being good or excellent. Most HCP videos were poor (63.2%), whilst many non-HCP videos were very poor (61.0%). The most viewed video had 2,800,000 views but scored a 31 on the DISCERN tool and one on the completeness assessment. The highest DISCERN score had 11,700 views. HCP videos better defined the disease and were more complete (p < 0.05). Most videos discussed self-assessment but were lacking in definitions, risk factors, symptoms, evaluation, management, and outcomes. Most of TikTok’s testicular cancer information lacks quality and completeness, whilst higher-quality videos have limited reach.","PeriodicalId":21961,"journal":{"name":"Société Internationale d’Urologie Journal","volume":"52 31","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Société Internationale d’Urologie Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/siuj5030028","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

TikTok has become a hub for easily accessible medical information. However, the quality and completeness of this information for testicular cancer has not been examined. Our study aims to assess the quality and completeness of testicular cancer information on TikTok. A search was performed on TikTok using the search terms “Testicular Cancer” and “Testicle Cancer”. Inclusion criteria encompassed videos about testicular cancer in English. We excluded non-English videos, irrelevant videos, and videos without audio. We evaluated these videos using the DISCERN instrument and a completeness assessment. A total of 361 videos were considered for screening and 116 videos were included. Of these, 57 were created by healthcare professionals (HCPs). The median video length was 40 s (5–277 s), with >25 million cumulative views and a median of 446,400 views per video. The average DISCERN score was 29.0 ± 5.7, with HCPs providing higher-quality videos than non-HCPs (30.8 vs. 5.5, p < 0.05). HCPs also had more reliable videos (21.2 vs. 18.1, p < 0.05). Overall quality levels were mostly poor or very poor (97.4%), with none being good or excellent. Most HCP videos were poor (63.2%), whilst many non-HCP videos were very poor (61.0%). The most viewed video had 2,800,000 views but scored a 31 on the DISCERN tool and one on the completeness assessment. The highest DISCERN score had 11,700 views. HCP videos better defined the disease and were more complete (p < 0.05). Most videos discussed self-assessment but were lacking in definitions, risk factors, symptoms, evaluation, management, and outcomes. Most of TikTok’s testicular cancer information lacks quality and completeness, whilst higher-quality videos have limited reach.
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
嘀嗒网上睾丸癌健康信息的质量和完整性评估
TikTok 已成为轻松获取医疗信息的枢纽。然而,这些睾丸癌信息的质量和完整性尚未得到研究。我们的研究旨在评估 TikTok 上睾丸癌信息的质量和完整性。我们使用 "睾丸癌 "和 "睾丸癌 "这两个搜索词在 TikTok 上进行了搜索。纳入标准包括有关睾丸癌的英文视频。我们排除了非英语视频、无关视频和无音频视频。我们使用 DISCERN 工具和完整性评估对这些视频进行了评估。共有 361 部视频被考虑进行筛选,其中 116 部视频被纳入其中。其中,57 个视频由医疗保健专业人员 (HCP) 制作。视频长度的中位数为 40 秒(5-277 秒),累计观看次数超过 2,500 万次,每段视频的观看次数中位数为 446,400 次。DISCERN 的平均得分为 29.0 ± 5.7,HCP 提供的视频质量高于非 HCP(30.8 vs. 5.5,p < 0.05)。高级保健医生提供的视频也更可靠(21.2 对 18.1,p < 0.05)。总体质量水平大多较差或很差(97.4%),没有良好或优秀的。大多数卫生保健人员的视频质量较差(63.2%),而许多非卫生保健人员的视频质量很差(61.0%)。观看次数最多的视频有 280 万次观看,但在 DISCERN 工具中得了 31 分,在完整性评估中得了 1 分。DISCERN 评分最高的视频有 1.17 万次观看。保健医生视频对疾病的定义更明确,内容更完整(p < 0.05)。大多数视频讨论了自我评估,但缺乏定义、风险因素、症状、评估、管理和结果。TikTok上的大多数睾丸癌信息缺乏质量和完整性,而质量较高的视频影响力有限。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Patient Education: A Bladder Cancer Consultation with ChatGPT Perioperative Blood Transfusion Is Associated with Worse Survival in Patients Undergoing Radical Cystectomy after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer RE: Prevalence of MRI Lesions in Men Responding to a GP-Led Invitation for a Prostate Health Check: A Prospective Cohort Study Quality and Readability of Google Search Information on HoLEP for Benign Prostate Hyperplasia A Quality and Completeness Assessment of Testicular Cancer Health Information on TikTok
×
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