234 Analyzing the Quality of YouTube Videos on Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Surgery. Issue 1 (1st April 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Paredes-Bhushan, V; Patel, R; Saunders, J; Rezaee, M; Gross, M
• Is Part Of: Journal of sexual medicine. Volume 19:Issue 1(2022)Supplement
• Page Start: S117
• Page End: S117
• Publication Date: 2022-04-01
• Subjects: Sexual disorders -- Periodicals; Sex -- Periodicals; Sexual health -- Periodicals; 616.69005
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2022.01.248
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1743-6095

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Introduction: Video websites, predominantly YouTube.com, offer patients unfiltered and unregulated medical content. Patient commonly use these online medical resources to investigate intimate conditions. It remains unknown whether YouTube videos on penile prosthesis surgery are useful or informative for patients. Objective: We assessed the quality and reliability of YouTube videos pertaining to penile prosthesis surgery. Methods: We compiled penile prosthesis videos on YouTube using a combination of multiple pertinent keyword searches. Videos were initially screened by two reviewers. Videos that were irrelevant, not in English, or without audio and also without captioning were excluded. Video demographics and viewership information were collected and categorized by channel type. Videos were then scored by three reviewers. Videos were categorized by themes, which included useful, misleading, or patient views. Reliability was assessed using a modified 5-point DISCERN tool and videos were rated using 5-point Global Quality Scale (GQS). Video comprehensiveness was evaluated using a 5-point content score. Interobserver agreement was assessed using Cohen's kappa score (k) and intraclass correlation coefficient. Results: Of the 165 videos that initially met inclusion criteria, 23 were hidden or deleted from YouTube at the time of analysis. The remaining 142 videos totaled 1.21 million views, with an average view count of 85, 914. Of these, 57 (40.4%) were from universities, professional organizations, non-profits or physicians/physician groups. An additional 56 (39.7%) were medical advertisements from for-profit companies. 20 videos (14.2%) were from individual channels and 13 (9.2%) were stand-alone health information websites. The average reliability score was 3.49 (±1.32), k=0.489. The average GQS was 3.26 (±1.22), k=0.128. The average content score was 1.89 (±1.45), k=0.683. Intraclass correlation coefficient was calculated as for 0.755 for DISCERN and 0.822 for GQS, suggesting strong reliability. 76 videos (53.9%) were identified as self-promotional. 20 videos (14.1%) were identified as patient testimonials. 123 videos (86.6%) were identified as "useful", 2 videos (1.41%) "misleading" and, 17 videos (12%) as "patient views". Conclusions: There is room for improvement in the quality and reliability of YouTube videos pertaining to penile prosthesis surgery. The analyzed YouTube videos also have low content comprehensiveness. Results were consistent across reviewers. Over half of penile prosthesis surgery videos on YouTube are clearly identified as self-promotional by reviewers. Disclosure: Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Coloplast