Testicular cancer and YouTube: What do you expect from a social media platform?

Francesco Di Bello; Claudia Collà Ruvolo; Simone Cilio; Roberto La Rocca; Marco Capece; Massimiliano Creta; Giuseppe Celentano; Gianluigi Califano; Simone Morra; Carmine Iacovazzo; Antonio Coviello; Pasquale Buonanno; Ferdinando Fusco; Ciro Imbimbo; Vincenzo Mirone; Nicola Longo

doi:10.1111/iju.14871

Testicular cancer and YouTube: What do you expect from a social media platform?

Int J Urol. 2022 Jul;29(7):685-691. doi: 10.1111/iju.14871. Epub 2022 Mar 22.

Authors

Francesco Di Bello¹, Claudia Collà Ruvolo¹, Simone Cilio¹, Roberto La Rocca¹, Marco Capece¹, Massimiliano Creta¹, Giuseppe Celentano¹, Gianluigi Califano¹, Simone Morra¹, Carmine Iacovazzo¹, Antonio Coviello¹, Pasquale Buonanno¹, Ferdinando Fusco², Ciro Imbimbo¹, Vincenzo Mirone¹, Nicola Longo¹

Affiliations

¹ Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples "Federico II", Naples, Italy.
² Urology Unit, Department of Woman Child and General and Specialist Surgery, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Caserta, Italy.

PMID: 35318754
DOI: 10.1111/iju.14871

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the quality information on testicular cancer uploaded on YouTube™ videos.

Methods: YouTube™ videos were searched using "Testicular cancer" as a keyword. The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool, the Misinformation scale, and the DISCERN tool were used to assess the quality information of YouTube™ videos on testicular cancer.

Results: According to the selection criteria, 121 YouTube™ videos were collected for the analysis and stratified according to uploading year (2009-2014 vs 2015-2020). According to the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for audio-visual content, the overall Understandability score was 60% (interquartile range 45.5-75) and the overall Actionability score was 100% (interquartile range 66.7-100). According to the Misinformation scale, the lowest median was recorded for item 6 ("Effects on fertility") and the overall median Misinformation score was 2 (interquartile range 1.3-2.8). No statistically significant differences were observed according to uploading year (all P > 0.05). Of all, only 54 (44.6%) videos mentioning treatment were subsequently analyzed. Of these videos, the overall Understandability was 71.4% (interquartile range 56.3-84.6) and the overall Actionability was 100% (interquartile range 66.7-100). The overall Misinformation score was 2.8 (interquartile range 2.2-3.5). The median DISCERN score recorded for question 16 was 5 (interquartile range 3-5).

Conclusions: YouTube™ is a fast and open-access source for mass information. The overall quality of the testicular cancer contents provided is sadly unsatisfactory, in the present likewise in the past. However, YouTube™ videos mentioning treatment options showed higher quality content, than the remaining one. Nevertheless, all the videos analyzed underestimated the testicular cancer effects on fertility. Nowadays, YouTube™ cannot be recommended as a reliable source of information on testicular cancer.

Keywords: YouTube; fertility; patient information; social media; testis cancer; urology.

MeSH terms

Humans
Neoplasms*
Social Media*
Video Recording