https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2022.3.285
0
0
0
0
Smart Citations0
0
0
0
Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
See how this article has been cited at scite.ai
scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.
Could YouTubeTM encourage men on prostate checks? A contemporary analysis
Objectives: To assess YouTube™ videos’ quality on prostate checks, especially on the digital rectal exam (DRE), and to investigate if they can inform patients correctly and eradicate their beliefs and myths.
Methods: A search using as keywords “digital rectal exam for prostate cancer” was performed on the YouTubeTM platform. We selected the first 100 videos. To assess video quality content, Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for audio-visual content (PEMAT A/V) and Misinformation tool were used.
Results: Seventy-three videos were suitable for the analyses. The median PEMAT A/V Understandability score and PEMAT A/V Actionability score were 46.2% (interquartile range [IQR]: 30.8-76.9) and 50.0% (IQR: 25.0-75.0), respectively. The medi-an PEMAT A/V Understandability and Actionability scores were 69.2% (IQR: 46.2-88.5) vs 46.2% (IQR: 30.8-61.5) (p = 0.01) and 100.0% (IQR: 87.5-100.0) vs 25.0% (IQR: 25.0-68.8)
(p < 0.001), for healthcare workers vs patients, respectively. According to the Misinformation tool, the median misinforma-tion score of the overall videos was 2.2 (IQR:1.7-2.8). According to the target audience, the misinformation score was 2.8 (IQR: 2.4-3.5) vs 2.0 (IQR: 1.5-2.8) (p = 0.02), for healthcare workers vs patients, respectively.
Conclusions: Currently, based on our analyses, YouTubeTM videos’ quality on DRE resulted unsatisfactory according to the PEMAT A/V score and the Misinformation tool. Videos targeted to healthcare workers got higher quality scores if compared to videos targeted to patients. Therefore, YouTubeTM videos’ may not be considered a reliable source of information on DRE for patients.
Ferlay J, Colombet M, Soerjomataram I, et al. Estimating the glob-al cancer incidence and mortality in 2018: GLOBOCAN sources and methods. Int J Cancer. 2019; 144:1941-1953.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.31937
Capece M, Creta M, Calogero A, et al. Does physical activity reg-ulate prostate carcinogenesis and prostate cancer outcomes? A nar-rative review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 17:1441.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041441
Stolzenbach LF, Rosiello G, Deuker M, et al. The impact of race and age on distribution of metastases in patients with prostate can-cer. J Urol. 2020; 204:962-968.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001131
Jones D, Friend C, Dreher A, et al. The diagnostic test accuracy of rectal examination for prostate cancer diagnosis in symptomatic patients: a systematic review. BMC Fam Pract. 2018; 19:79.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-018-0765-y
Wenzel M, Würnschimmel C, Nocera L, et al. The effect of lymph node dissection on cancer-specific survival in salvage radical prosta-tectomy patients. The Prostate. 2021; 81:339-346.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.24112
Stanzione A, Cuocolo R, Cocozza S, et al. Detection of extrapro-static extension of cancer on biparametric MRI combining texture analysis and machine learning: preliminary results. Acad Radiol. 2019; 26:1338-1344.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2018.12.025
Scandurra C, Mangiapia F, La Rocca R,, et al. A cross-sectional study on demoralization in prostate cancer patients: the role of mas-culine self-esteem, depression, and resilience. Support Care Cancer. 2022; 30:7021-7030.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-022-07145-9
Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2020 Update. Part 1: Screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2021; 79:243-262.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042
Collà Ruvolo C, Stolzenbach LF, Nocera L, et al. Comparison of Mexican-American vs Caucasian prostate cancer active surveillance candidates. Urol Oncol. 2021; 39:74.e1-74.e7.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.08.012
Carter HB, Albertsen PC, Barry MJ, et al. Early detection of prostate cancer: AUA Guideline. J Urol. 2013; 190:419-426.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.04.119
Cornford P, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part II-2020 Update: treatment of relapsing and metastatic prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2021; 79:263-282.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.046
Stanzione A, Creta M, Imbriaco M, et al. Attitudes and percep-tions towards multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate: a national survey among Italian urologists. Arch Ital Urol Androl 2020; 92:291-296.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2020.4.291
Carvalhal GF, Smith DS, Mager DE, et al. Digital rectal exami-nation for detecting prostate cancer at prostate specific antigen levels of 4 ng./ml. or less. J Urol. 1999; 161:835-839.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(01)61785-3
Naccarato AMEP, Reis LO, Matheus WE, et al. Barriers to prostate cancer screening: psychological aspects and descriptive vari-ables---is there a correlation? Aging Male Off J Int Soc Study Aging Male. 2011; 14:66-71.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/13685538.2010.522277
Scandurra C, Muzii B, La Rocca R, et al. Social support mediates the relationship between body image distress and depressive symp-toms in prostate cancer patients. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 19:4825.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19084825
Loeb S, Sengupta S, Butaney M, et al. Dissemination of misinfor-mative and biased information about prostate cancer on YouTube. Eur Urol. 2019; 75:564-567.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.10.056
Basch CH, Menafro A, Mongiovi J, et al. A Content Analysis of YouTubeTM Videos Related to Prostate Cancer. Am J Mens Health. 2017; 11:154-157.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1557988316671459
Creta M, Sagnelli C, Celentano G, et al. SARS-CoV-2 infection affects the lower urinary tract and male genital system: A systemat-ic review. J Med Virol. 2021; 93:3133-3142.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.26883
Teoh JYC, Ong WLK, Gonzalez-Padilla D, et al. A global survey on the impact of COVID-19 on urological services. Eur Urol. 2020; 78:265-275.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.05.025
Morra S, Collà Ruvolo C, Napolitano L, et al. YouTubeTM as a source of information on bladder pain syndrome: A contemporary analysis. Neurourol Urodyn 2022; 41:237-245.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.24802
Morra S, Collà Ruvolo C, Napolitano L, et al. Reply to a letter to the editor regarding the published article: “YouTubeTM as a source of information on bladder pain syndrome: A contemporary analysis.” Neurourol Urodyn. 2022; 41:1194-1196.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.24945
Mirone V, Creta M, Capece M, et al. Telementoring for commu-nication between residents and faculty physicians: Results from a sur-vey on attitudes and perceptions in an Academic Tertiary Urology Referral Department in Italy. Arch Ital Urol Androl 2021; 93:450-454.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2021.4.450
Napolitano L, Fusco GM, Cirillo L, et al. Erectile dysfunction and mobile phone applications: Quality, content and adherence to European Association guidelines on male sexual dysfunction. Arch Ital Urol Androl 2022; 94:211-216.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2022.2.211
Capece M, Di Giovanni A, Cirigliano L, et al. YouTube as a source of information on penile prosthesis. Andrologia 2022; 54:e14246.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/and.14246
Melchionna A, Collà Ruvolo C, Capece M, et al. Testicular pain and youtubeTM: are uploaded videos a reliable source to get infor-mation? Int J Impot Res. 2022 Feb 8. doi: 10.1038/s41443-022-00536-w. Epub ahead of print.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-022-00536-w
Fode M, Nolsøe AB, Jacobsen FM, et al. Quality of information in YouTube videos on erectile dysfunction. Sex Med. 2020; 8:408-413.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esxm.2020.05.007
Cilio S, Collà Ruvolo C, Turco C, et al. Analysis of quality information provided by “Dr. YouTubeTM” on phimosis. Int J Impot Res. 2022; 24:1-6.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-022-00557-5
Turco C, Collà Ruvolo C, Cilio S, et al. Looking for cystoscopy on YouTube: Are videos a reliable information tool for internet users?Arch Ital Urol Androl 2022; 94:57-61.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2022.1.57
Di Bello F, Collà Ruvolo C, Cilio S, et al. Testicular cancer and YouTube: What do you expect from a social media platform? Int J Urol. 2022; 29:685-691.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.14871
Collà Ruvolo C, Califano G, Tuccillo A, et al. YouTubeTM as a source of information on placenta accreta: A quality analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2022; 272:82-87.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2022.03.015
Rubel KE, Alwani MM, Nwosu OI, et al. Understandability and actionability of audiovisual patient education materials on sinusitis. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2020; 10:564-571.
Gerundo G, Collà Ruvolo C, Puzone B, et al. Personal protective equipment in Covid-19: Evidence-based quality and analysis of YouTube videos after one year of pandemic. Am J Infect Control.2022; 50:300-305.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2021.11.013
PEMAT Tool for Audiovisual Materials (PEMAT-A/V). Accessed March 7, 2021. http://www.ahrq.gov/health-literacy/patient-educa-tion/pemat-av.html
Shoemaker SJ, Wolf MS, Brach C. Development of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT): A new measure of understandability and actionability for print and audiovisual patient information. Patient Educ Couns. 2014; 96:395-403.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2014.05.027
Rubel KE, Alwani MM, Nwosu OI, et al. Understandability and actionability of audiovisual patient education materials on sinusitis. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2020; 10:564-571.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/alr.22518
Kogan MI, Naboka YL, Ismailov RS, et al. Bacterial prostatitis: epidemiology and etiology. Urologiia. 2018; (6):144-148.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.18565/urology.2018.6.144-148
Califano G, Collà Ruvolo C, Creta M, et al. Focus on silodosin: pros and cons of uroselectivity. Res Rep Urol. 2020; 12:669-672.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/RRU.S287129
Verze P, Califano G, Sokolakis I, et al. The impact of surgery for lower urinary tract symptoms/benign prostatic enlargement on both erectile and ejaculatory function: a systematic review. Int J Impot Res. 2019; 31:319-327.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-019-0140-0
Mirone V, Napolitano L, D’Emmanuele di Villa Bianca R, et al. A new original nutraceutical formulation ameliorates the effect of Tadalafil on clinical score and cGMP accumulation. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2021; 93:221-226.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2021.2.221
Megaly M, Khalil C, Tadros B, Tawadros M. Evaluation of edu-cational value of YouTube videos for patients with coeliac disease. Int J Celiac Dis. 2016; 4:102-104.
How to Cite
Morra, S., Napolitano, L., Collà Ruvolo, C., Celentano, G., La Rocca, R., Capece, M., Creta, M., Passaro, F., Di Bello, F., Cirillo, L., Turco, C., Di Mauro, E., Pezone, G., Fraia, A., Mangiapia, F., Fusco, F., Mirone, V., Califano, G., & Longo, N. (2022). Could YouTubeTM encourage men on prostate checks? A contemporary analysis. Archivio Italiano Di Urologia E Andrologia, 94(3), 285–290. https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2022.3.285
PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.
