Quality of bladder cancer information on YouTube.

IF 1.4 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Central European Journal of Urology Pub Date : 2022-01-01 Epub Date: 2022-08-24 DOI:10.5173/ceju.2022.151
Alba Maria García-Cano-Fernández, Juliusz Jan Szczesniewski-Dudzik, Ana García-Tello, Victoria Diego-García, Juan Boronat-Catalá, Luis Llanes-González
{"title":"Quality of bladder cancer information on YouTube.","authors":"Alba Maria García-Cano-Fernández,&nbsp;Juliusz Jan Szczesniewski-Dudzik,&nbsp;Ana García-Tello,&nbsp;Victoria Diego-García,&nbsp;Juan Boronat-Catalá,&nbsp;Luis Llanes-González","doi":"10.5173/ceju.2022.151","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>YouTube is one of the social networks most widely used as a source of information. However, there are doubts about the scientific quality of the information available. This study aims to characterise this by analysing videos about bladder cancer posted on YouTube.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>This was a cross-sectional descriptive study of the first 50 Spanish-language videos published on YouTube, leaving 38 for analysis. The videos were evaluated by three urologists using two validated questionnaires: Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) and DISCERN (quality criteria for consumer health information), classifying them according to the score of the latter, in poor quality (1-2 points) and moderate/good quality (3-5 points).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The median PEMAT score was 71.6% (16-5-100%) for understanding and 35.5% (0-100%) for action. According to DISCERN, 26 videos (66.7%) were of poor quality and 12 (30.8%) of moderate/good quality. We found significant differences in terms of PEMAT of understanding (p = 0.004) and action (p = 0.000). In total, 90.9% of those involving medical staff were of low quality, which is paradoxical, but statistically significant (p = 0.01). Furthermore, 52.4% of those describing relevant information were of moderate/good quality, and 94.1% of those not describing relevant information were of poor quality (p = 0.02).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>More than 60% of the videos published on YouTube about bladder cancer in Spanish are of low quality. This represents an important risk of misinformation for the general public to whom most of them are addressed.</p>","PeriodicalId":9744,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of Urology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/79/5d/CEJU-75-0151.PMC9628723.pdf","citationCount":"47","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Central European Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2022.151","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/8/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 47

Abstract

Introduction: YouTube is one of the social networks most widely used as a source of information. However, there are doubts about the scientific quality of the information available. This study aims to characterise this by analysing videos about bladder cancer posted on YouTube.

Material and methods: This was a cross-sectional descriptive study of the first 50 Spanish-language videos published on YouTube, leaving 38 for analysis. The videos were evaluated by three urologists using two validated questionnaires: Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) and DISCERN (quality criteria for consumer health information), classifying them according to the score of the latter, in poor quality (1-2 points) and moderate/good quality (3-5 points).

Results: The median PEMAT score was 71.6% (16-5-100%) for understanding and 35.5% (0-100%) for action. According to DISCERN, 26 videos (66.7%) were of poor quality and 12 (30.8%) of moderate/good quality. We found significant differences in terms of PEMAT of understanding (p = 0.004) and action (p = 0.000). In total, 90.9% of those involving medical staff were of low quality, which is paradoxical, but statistically significant (p = 0.01). Furthermore, 52.4% of those describing relevant information were of moderate/good quality, and 94.1% of those not describing relevant information were of poor quality (p = 0.02).

Conclusions: More than 60% of the videos published on YouTube about bladder cancer in Spanish are of low quality. This represents an important risk of misinformation for the general public to whom most of them are addressed.

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上膀胱癌信息的质量。
YouTube是最广泛使用的信息来源之一。然而,人们对现有信息的科学质量表示怀疑。这项研究旨在通过分析YouTube上发布的关于膀胱癌的视频来描述这一点。材料和方法:这是对YouTube上发布的前50个西班牙语视频的横断面描述性研究,留下38个用于分析。视频由三名泌尿科医生使用两份有效问卷进行评估:患者教育材料评估工具(PEMAT)和消费者健康信息质量标准(DISCERN),根据后者的得分将其分为质量差(1-2分)和质量中/良好(3-5分)。结果:理解的中位PEMAT评分为71.6%(16-5-100%),行动的中位评分为35.5%(0-100%)。根据DISCERN的调查,26个(66.7%)视频质量较差,12个(30.8%)视频质量中等或良好。我们发现在理解(p = 0.004)和行动(p = 0.000)方面存在显著差异。总体而言,90.9%的医务人员素质不高,这是矛盾的,但具有统计学意义(p = 0.01)。此外,描述相关信息的52.4%为中等/良好质量,未描述相关信息的94.1%为差质量(p = 0.02)。结论:在YouTube上发布的有关膀胱癌的西班牙语视频中,超过60%的视频质量较差。这对他们中的大多数人所针对的公众来说是一个重要的错误信息风险。
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
Central European Journal of Urology
Central European Journal of Urology UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
8.30%
发文量
48
期刊最新文献
Transperitoneal single-port robotic Firefly-guided bladder diverticulectomy and simple prostatectomy. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, ureterolithotripsy, and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy challenges in managing spinal cord neuropathy patients. Lessons learned from a scoping review. Robotic left nephrectomy with level IV inferior vena cava thrombectomy using the AngioVac system. Detrusor underactivity in symptomatic anterior pelvic organ prolapse. The role of gel-infused translabial ultrasound as a new modality in evaluation of female urethral stricture.
×
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