Abstract

YouTube is the most used social media website, and there is a growing body of literature examining the reliability of healthcare information on this platform. Patients seeking men's health information may be more likely to use YouTube owing to the sensitivity of these issues. The objective of this study is to review the literature for studies related to the reliability of YouTube videos about men's health topics. A literature review was conducted using PubMed and Google Scholar for publications related to the reliability of YouTube videos about men's health as of July 1,2020. There were 17 studies related to YouTube and Men's Health. Most videos were found to be unreliable, and videos uploaded by physicians or healthcare organizations were usually more reliable. However, there were no studies in which more reliable videos had higher metrics of user engagement (views, likes, comments) than unreliable videos and there were several studies where unreliable videos had higher metrics of user engagement. In addition, the methods used to evaluate YouTube videos are not uniform across studies including the way that terms are searched (filtering by relevance vs view count) and the way in which reliability is assessed. For example, some studies create custom evaluation forms based on clinical guidelines, whereas others use validated questionnaires. The only validated questionnaire used across multiple studies was the DISCERN score criterion. Most information on YouTube about men's health is unreliable. Videos created by physicians and healthcare organizations are more reliable, and videos that are advertisements are less reliable. Physicians and healthcare systems should continue to upload educational YouTube videos but work to increase their views and user engagement. It may benefit patients if physician organizations could work with YouTube to create verified videos disseminating healthcare information that are favored in the search algorithm. Warren CJ, Sawhney R, Shah T, etal. YouTube and Men's Health: A Review of the Current Literature. Sex Med Rev 2021;9:280-288.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call