2. UroToday Home
  3. Recent Abstracts
  4. Urologic Oncology
  5. Prostate Cancer

Could YouTube Encourage Men on Prostate Checks? A Contemporary Analysis - Beyond the Abstract

Nowadays, the use of social media platforms has rapidly grown: in 2021, more than 70% of American adults said they use social media daily. It is noteworthy that the percentage of men who report using social media increased from 6 to 66% between 2005 to 2021.1 Specifically, among the various social media platforms currently available, YouTube is the most used by men (82%), counting more than 2 billion registered users in 2022 and more than five billion videos watched daily.1-3 Another important aspect is the age of YouTube users: more than 80% of men aged 50-64 declared using YouTube daily.1

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common malignancy among elderly men, with 1 276 000 new diagnoses and 359 000 deaths in 2018 worldwide.4,5 Screening is the best way for PCa early diagnosis, and it is recommended for all men with no risk factors over 50 years.6,7 A digital rectal exam (DRE) in addition to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test is the most used test to screen for PCa. According to European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines, in 18% of cases, PCa is detected by suspect DRE alone. In comparison, a suspect DRE in patients with a PSA level < 2 ng/mL has a positive predictive value (PPV) of 5-30%.6,8,9 Despite these relevant data, DRE is still a procedure experienced with discomfort by a not negligible percentage (about 20%) of patients.10
Over 50 million Americans search for medical information and advice on the Internet.11 Nevertheless, the medical contents uploaded to social media platforms are not subjected to any proofreading operation, not guaranteeing the quality of the information. Healthcare providers and government agencies have expressed concern about the veracity and quality of the information available on social media platforms.12

The aim of our study was to assess YouTubeTM videos’ quality on prostate checks, especially on DRE, and to investigate if they can inform patients correctly and eradicate their beliefs and myths.

In order to assess video quality content, Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for audio-visual content (PEMAT A/V) and Misinformation tool were used.

We recorded a median PEMAT A/V Understandability and Actionability score of 46.2 and 50%, respectively. Moreover, according to the target audience (Healthcare workers vs patients) PEMAT A/V Understandability score was 69.2 vs 46.2%, and Actionability score was 100 vs 25%, respectively.

According to the Misinformation tool, the median misinformation score of the overall videos was 2.2. Moreover, according to the target audience (Healthcare workers vs patients) the misinformation score was 2.8 vs 2.0, respectively.

According to our results, YouTubeTM videos’ quality on DRE resulted in unsatisfactory according to the PEMAT A/V score and the Misinformation tool. Moreover, it was highlighted that videos targeted to healthcare workers got higher quality scores if compared to videos targeted to patients.

Written by: Simone Morra1,2

  1. Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada
  2. Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy

References:

  1. NW, 1615 L. St; Washington, S. 800; Inquiries, D. 20036 U.-419-4300 | M.-857-8562 | F.-419-4372 | M. Social Media Fact Sheet. Pew Res. Cent. Internet Sci. Tech.
  2. Loeb, S.; Sengupta, S.; Butaney, M.; Macaluso, J.N.; Czarniecki, S.W.; Robbins, R.; Braithwaite, R.S.; Gao, L.; Byrne, N.; Walter, D.; et al. Dissemination of Misinformative and Biased Information about Prostate Cancer on YouTube. Eur. Urol. 2019, 75, 564–567, doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2018.10.056.
  3. Morra, S.; Collà Ruvolo, C.; Napolitano, L.; La Rocca, R.; Celentano, G.; Califano, G.; Creta, M.; Capece, M.; Turco, C.; Cilio, S.; et al. YouTubeTM as a Source of Information on Bladder Pain Syndrome: A Contemporary Analysis. Neurourol. Urodyn. 2021, doi:10.1002/nau.24802.
  4. Ferlay, J.; Colombet, M.; Soerjomataram, I.; Mathers, C.; Parkin, D.M.; Piñeros, M.; Znaor, A.; Bray, F. Estimating the Global Cancer Incidence and Mortality in 2018: GLOBOCAN Sources and Methods. Int. J. Cancer 2019, 144, 1941–1953, doi:10.1002/ijc.31937.
  5. Capece, M.; Creta, M.; Calogero, A.; La Rocca, R.; Napolitano, L.; Barone, B.; Sica, A.; Fusco, F.; Santangelo, M.; Dodaro, C.; et al. Does Physical Activity Regulate Prostate Carcinogenesis and Prostate Cancer Outcomes? A Narrative Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2020, 17, 1441, doi:10.3390/ijerph17041441.
  6. Mottet, N.; van den Bergh, R.C.N.; Briers, E.; Van den Broeck, T.; Cumberbatch, M.G.; De Santis, M.; Fanti, S.; Fossati, N.; Gandaglia, G.; Gillessen, S.; 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:10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042.
  7. Collà Ruvolo, C.; Stolzenbach, L.F.; Nocera, L.; Deuker, M.; Mistretta, F.A.; Luzzago, S.; Tian, Z.; Longo, N.; Graefen, M.; Chun, F.K.H.; et al. Comparison of Mexican-American vs Caucasian Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Candidates. Urol. Oncol. 2021, 39, 74.e1-74.e7, doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.08.012.
  8. Stanzione, A.; Creta, M.; Imbriaco, M.; La Rocca, R.; Capece, M.; Esposito, F.; Imbimbo, C.; Fusco, F.; Celentano, G.; Napolitano, L.; et al. Attitudes and Perceptions towards Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Prostate: A National Survey among Italian Urologists. Arch. Ital. Urol. Androl. Organo Uff. Soc. Ital. Ecogr. Urol. E Nefrol. 2020, 92, doi:10.4081/aiua.2020.4.291.
  9. Carvalhal, G.F.; Smith, D.S.; Mager, D.E.; Ramos, C.; Catalona, W.J. Digital Rectal Examination for Detecting Prostate Cancer at Prostate Specific Antigen Levels of 4 Ng./Ml. or Less. J. Urol. 1999, 161, 835–839.
  10. Nijs, H.G.; Essink-Bot, M.L.; DeKoning, H.J.; Kirkels, W.J.; Schröder, F.H. Why Do Men Refuse or Attend Population-Based Screening for Prostate Cancer? J. Public Health Med. 2000, 22, 312–316, doi:10.1093/pubmed/22.3.312.
  11. Steinberg, P.L.; Wason, S.; Stern, J.M.; Deters, L.; Kowal, B.; Seigne, J. YouTube as Source of Prostate Cancer Information. Urology 2010, 75, 619–622, doi:10.1016/j.urology.2008.07.059.
  12. Madathil, K.C.; Rivera-Rodriguez, A.J.; Greenstein, J.S.; Gramopadhye, A.K. Healthcare Information on YouTube: A Systematic Review. Health Informatics J. 2015, 21, 173–194, doi:10.1177/1460458213512220.
Read the Abstract