An evaluation of YouTube video content regarding erectile dysfunction

Purpose: YouTubeTM is one of the most popular social media platforms on the internet, and patients with chronic disease frequently use it to seek treatment options. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the quality of YouTube videos about erectile dysfunction.

Materials & methods: The terms "erectile dysfunction treatment'', "erectile dysfunction surgery'', and "cure erectile dysfunction'' were entered into the YouTube search bar. A total of 56 videos were included in the study. Videos' view counts; upload dates; like, dislike, and comment counts; uploader qualifications; length; and content were recorded. Video power index (VPI), Quality Criteria for Consumer Health Information (DISCERN), and Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) scores were determined.

Results: Thirty-two (57.1%) videos consisted of real images, and 24 (42.9%) contained animated images. Twenty-four (42.9%) videos were uploaded by physicians, and 32 (57.1%) were uploaded by non-physicians. The mean like count of the videos was 5,307 ± 17.618, the mean dislike count was 560.07 ± 1548.07, and the mean comment count was 235 ± 373. The mean VPI value of the videos was calculated as 81.19 ± 21.19, the DISCERN score was 30.5 ± 8.1, and the JAMA score was 1.23 ± 0.55. Overall quality was very poor in 24 (42.9%) of the examined videos, poor in 21 (37.5%), average in 10 (17.9%), and good in one (1.8%).

Conclusion: The overall quality of YouTube content on erectile dysfunction was not sufficient to provide reliable information for patients. Physicians should warn patients about the limitations of YouTube and direct them toward more appropriate sources of information.

Erectile dysfunction; YouTube; DISCERN; JAMA; Quality

[1] Hatzimouratidis K, Amar E, Eardley I, Giuliano F, Hatzichristou D, Montorsi F, et al. Guidelines on male sexual dysfunction: erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation. European Urology. 2010; 57: 804–814.

[2] Feldman HA, Goldstein I, Hatzichristou DG, Krane RJ, McKinlay JB. Impotence and its medical and psychosocial correlates: results of the Massachusetts male aging study. Journal of Urology. 1994; 151: 54–61.

[3] Kuru T, Erken HY. Evaluation of the quality and reliability of YouTube videos on rotator cuff tears. Cureus. 2020; 12: e6852.

[4] Powell J, Inglis N, Ronnie J, Large S. The characteristics and motivations of online health information seekers: cross-sectional survey and qualitative interview study. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2011; 13: e20.

[5] Fox S, Raine L. The online health care revolution: how the web helps Americans take better care of themselves. Washington DC: Pew Charitable Trusts. 2000.

[6] Fernandez-Luque L, Karlsen R, Melton GB. HealthTrust: a social network approach for retrieving online health videos. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2012; 14: e22.

[7] Ferhatoglu MF, Kartal A, Ekici U, Gurkan A. Evaluation of the reliability, utility, and quality of the ınformation in sleeve gastrectomy videos shared on open access video sharing platform YouTube. Obesity Surgery. 2019; 29: 1477–1484.

[8] OMNICORE. YouTube by the Numbers: Stats, Demographics & Fun Facts. 2020. Avaliable at: https://www.omnicoreagency.com/youtube-statistics/ (Accessed: 18 Janurary 2020).

[9] Pandey A, Patni N, Singh M, Sood A, Singh G. YouTube as a source of information on the H1N1 influenza pandemic. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2010; 38: e1–e3.

[10] Sood A, Sarangi S, Pandey A, Murugiah K. YouTube as a source of information on kidney stone disease. Urology. 2011; 77: 558–562.

[11] Fast AM, Deibert CM, Hruby GW, Glassberg KI. Evaluating the quality of Internet health resources in pediatric urology. Journal of Pediatric Urology. 2013; 9: 151–156.

[12] Fode M, Nolsøe AB, Jacobsen FM, Russo GI, Østergren PB, Jensen CFS, et al. Quality of ınformation in YouTube videos on erectile dysfunction. Sexual Medicine. 2020; 8: 408–413.

[13] DISCERN: quality criteria for consumer health information. 2020. Available at: http://www.discern.org.uk/discern_ instrument.php (Accessed: 29 January 2021).

[14] Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 1999; 53: 105–111.

[15] Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, controling and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: caveant lector et viewor-let the reader and viewer beware. The Journal of the American Medical Association. 1997; 277: 1244–1245.

[16] Nason GJ, Baker JF, Byrne DP, Noel J, Moore D, Kiely PJ. Scoliosis-specific information on the internet: has the “information highway” led to better information provision? Spine. 2012; 37: E1364–E1369.

[17] Drozd B, Couvillon E, Suarez A. Medical YouTube videos and methods of evaluation: literature review. JMIR Medical Education. 2018; 4: e3.

[18] Fischer J, Geurts J, Valderrabano V, Hügle T. Educational quality of YouTube videos on knee arthrocentesis. Journal of Clinical Rheumatology. 2013; 19: 373–376.

[19] Ho M, Stothers L, Lazare D, Tsang B, Macnab A. Evaluation of educational content of YouTube videos relating to neurogenic bladder and intermittent catheterization. Canadian Urological Association Journal. 2015; 9: 320–354.

[20] Mukewar S, Mani P, Wu X, Lopez R, Shen B. YouTube and inflammatory bowel disease. Journal of Crohn’s & Colitis. 2013; 7: 392–402.

[21] Ovenden CD, Brooks FM. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion YouTube videos as a source of patient education. Asian Spine Journal. 2018; 12: 987–991.

[22] Gul M, Diri MA. YouTube as a source of ınformation about premature ejaculation treatment. Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2019; 16: 1734–1740.

[23] Loeb S, Sengupta S, Butaney M, Macaluso JN Jr, Czarniecki SW, Rob-bins R, et al. Dissemination of misinformative and biased ınformation about prostate cancer on YouTube. European Urology. 2019; 75: 564–567.

[24] Herbert AS, Nemirovsky A, Hess DS, Walter D, Abraham NE, Loeb S, et al. Pelvic organ prolapse on YouTube: evaluation of consumer information. BJU International. 2020; 125: 759–760.