(320) Erectile Dysfunction and Men’s Health Websites: How diverse is our Racial, Ethnic, and Sexual Orientation Representation?

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Images featured in patient educational materials can enhance comprehension of medical conditions, particularly those associated with sensitive issues like erectile dysfunction (ED). Past research indicates that minority men are often underrepresented in online urological content and thus may not relate to the material. Objective The present study aims to evaluate the representation of racial, ethnic, and sexual orientation diversity in ED and men’s health content on reputable urology program websites. Methods Websites of the top urology departments from U.S. News & World Reports 2022 rankings were reviewed as sources of high quality content. All subpages were reviewed to identify ED and men’s health sites with extraction of photo and video imagery depicting human subjects. A three-person review team interpreted race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation categorically. Race was also interpreted using a numeric scale, Fitzpatrick skin rating, and median ratings classified as white (1-3) or non-white (4-6). Consensus ratings were summarized descriptively. Spearman’s rank correlation was used to measure inter-rater reliability of Fitzpatrick ratings and MedCalc’s z-test used to compare diversity proportions to national rates from census data. Results The top 50 ranked urology program websites were reviewed. Seven programs did not have any patient-facing ED or men’s health web pages. Nearly half of programs with sites did not contain any human images (n=19/43, 44%). A total of 113 images were collected and reviewed. Race in the 102 (90.3%) interpretable images included 6 (5.9%) Asian, 16 (15.7%) black, 75 (73.5%) white, and 5 (4.9%) other men. Latino men were represented in 3/70 (4.3%) images. Utilizing Fitzpatrick ratings, 94 (83.2%) subjects were classified as white and 19 (16.8%) non-white. Most images [67 (59.3%)] demonstrated a man without a partner which precluded sexual orientation evaluation. Of those pictured with a partner, 25 (92.6%) were interpreted as heterosexual and 2 (7.4%) as same sex. Between reviewer correlation coefficients for Fitzpatrick ratings ranged from 0.66-0.69. Table 1 compares interpreted image data to population benchmarks from United States census data. Conclusions Limited imagery on academic urology ED websites continues to underrepresent some groups, namely Latinos. Although men in same sex relationships were depicted, the absolute number of such images was low. Conscious effort to improve diversity in online men’s health, and namely ED, content is needed. Disclosure No.