RESUMO
Introducción: La disfunción eréctil (DE) es una de las enfermedades urológicas más prevalentes, pero los datos de la calidad de su información en redes sociales son escasos. El objetivo de nuestro estudio fue evaluar la calidad de la información sobre DE contenida en los vídeos de YouTube. Material y métodos: Estudio descriptivo transversal de los 50 primeros vídeos en castellano publicados en YouTube, evaluados por tres urólogos mediante dos cuestionarios validados: Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) y DISCERN, clasificándolos según puntuación DISCERN en calidad pobre y moderada-buena. Resultados: La mediana de duración fue de 2,42 minutos, y la de visualizaciones, de 94.197 (2.313-3.027.890), con 682,5 (0-54.020) «me gusta» y 39 (0-2.843) «no me gusta». La mediana de PEMAT fue del 29% en inteligibilidad y del 29% en factibilidad. Con DISCERN, 27 vídeos (57,4%) fueron de calidad pobre y 20 (42,6%), de calidad moderada-buena. No observamos diferencias significativas entre ambos grupos en duración, visualizaciones, número de «me gusta» o de «no me gusta». Sí existieron diferencias en PEMAT de inteligibilidad y de factibilidad. El 86,7% de los protagonizados por personal médico fueron de calidad moderada-buena (p=0,001). El 85,7% de los que describían el tratamiento fueron de calidad moderada-buena y el 84% de los vídeos no médicos fueron de calidad pobre (p=0,001). Conclusiones: La mayoría de los vídeos sobre DE en YouTube son de calidad pobre. Los vídeos de mayor calidad son aquellos realizados por profesionales, aunque no son los más vistos. Sería importante el desarrollo de medidas para evitar la difusión de desinformación entre los usuarios de redes sociales. (AU)
Introduction: Erectile dysfunction (ED) is one of the most prevalent urological diseases, but there is limited data about the quality of its information in social networks. The aim of our study was to assess the quality of ED information contained in YouTube videos. Material and methods: Descriptive study of the first 50 Spanish-language videos, published on YouTube, evaluated by three urologists. We used two validated questionnaires: PEMAT (Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool) and DISCERN. Videos were classified according to DISCERN score into poor or moderate-good quality. Results: The median time duration was 2.42minutes (0.15-3.58), 94,197 views (2,313-3,027,890), 682.5 «likes» (0-54,020) and 39 «dislikes» (0-2843). The median of PEMAT score was 29% (9%-95.5%) in understandability and 29% (0-95.5%) in actionability. According to DISCERN score 27 videos (57.4%) had poor quality and 20 (42.6%) moderate-good quality. There were no significant differences between the two groups in time duration, views, «likes» or «dislikes». There were differences in PEMAT score in understandability and actionability. The 86.7% of the moderate-good quality videos were starred by health care provider (P=.001). Also, the 85.7% of videos that describes treatment had moderate-good quality (P=.001). The 84% of the non-medical videos had a poor quality (P=.001). Conclusion: Most ED videos on YouTube have poor quality. The highest quality videos are those made by professionals, although they are not the most viewed. It would be important to develop measures to prevent the spread of misinformation among social network users. (AU)
Assuntos
Humanos , Disfunção Erétil , 51835 , Recursos Audiovisuais , Rede Social , Epidemiologia Descritiva , Estudos Transversais , Inquéritos e QuestionáriosRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Erectile dysfunction (ED) is one of the most prevalent urological diseases, but there is limited data about the quality of its information in social networks. The aim of our study was to assess the quality of ED information contained in YouTube videos. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Descriptive study of the first 50 Spanish-language videos, published on YouTube, evaluated by three urologists. We used two validated questionnaires: PEMAT (Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool) and DISCERN. Videos were classified according to DISCERN score into poor or moderate-good quality. RESULTS: The median time duration was 2.42minutes (0.15-3.58), 94,197 views (2,313-3,027,890), 682.5 «likes¼ (0-54,020) and 39 «dislikes¼ (0-2843). The median of PEMAT score was 29% (9%-95.5%) in understandability and 29% (0-95.5%) in actionability. According to DISCERN score 27 videos (57.4%) had poor quality and 20 (42.6%) moderate-good quality. There were no significant differences between the two groups in time duration, views, «likes¼ or «dislikes¼. There were differences in PEMAT score in understandability and actionability. The 86.7% of the moderate-good quality videos were starred by health care provider (P=.001). Also, the 85.7% of videos that describes treatment had moderate-good quality (P=.001). The 84% of the non-medical videos had a poor quality (P=.001). CONCLUSION: Most ED videos on YouTube have poor quality. The highest quality videos are those made by professionals, although they are not the most viewed. It would be important to develop measures to prevent the spread of misinformation among social network users.
Assuntos
Disfunção Erétil , Mídias Sociais , Masculino , Humanos , UrologistasRESUMO
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.
