Dataset Information

Is Reddit a reliable source for information on erectile dysfunction treatment?

ABSTRACT: Patients may turn to social media websites, such as Reddit, for information on erectile dysfunction prior to seeking care from a physician. We sought to identify, characterize, and assess the quality of the erectile dysfunction treatments discussed on the highly influential Reddit website. We assessed 2634 comments from two subreddits, r/AskMen and r/ErectileDysfunction, for positive and negative statements regarding treatments for erectile dysfunction. A total of 45 unique treatments were discussed and consisted of changes in sexual behavior (30%), lifestyle changes (29%), medical interventions (23%), talking with a partner about ED (10%), and use of supplements (8%). Only 24.4% of all treatments discussed are in line with current American Urological Association guidelines. Only 43.8% of all positive statements made endorsed a guidelines-based treatment, indicating a high rate of self-proclaimed success with alternative therapies. Our results indicate that there is active discussion of erectile dysfunction treatment on Reddit with a wide range of therapies recommended, however, the majority of the recommendations are not supported by strong clinical evidence.

SUBMITTER: Sellke N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9123614 | biostudies-literature | 2022 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Is Reddit a reliable source for information on erectile dysfunction treatment?

Sellke Nicholas N Jesse Erin E Callegari Michael M Muncey Wade W Harris Daniel D Edwins Rebecca R Pominville Raymond R Ghayda Ramy Abou RA Loeb Aram A Thirumavalavan Nannan N

International journal of impotence research 20220521 5

Patients may turn to social media websites, such as Reddit, for information on erectile dysfunction prior to seeking care from a physician. We sought to identify, characterize, and assess the quality of the erectile dysfunction treatments discussed on the highly influential Reddit website. We assessed 2634 comments from two subreddits, r/AskMen and r/ErectileDysfunction, for positive and negative statements regarding treatments for erectile dysfunction. A total of 45 unique treatments were discu ...[more]

PMID: 35597799

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate the quality and readability of online patient information on treatment for erectile dysfunction using a Google search.Materials and methodsThe results of a Google search for "erectile dysfunction treatment" were reviewed. Webpages that contained written information on erectile dysfunction except those containing scientific publications and paywall protected webpages were included in further analysis. Typographic and treatment information were recorded. Readability was assessed using the Fleisch-Kincaid grade level, the Gunning-Fog index, the Coleman-Liau index, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook. Website quality was assessed using the DISCERN instrument, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, and presence of Health on the net (HON) code certification. Website typography, discussed treatment types, readability scores, and quality measures were reported. Parametric and nonparametric statistical tests were used to compare the data as appropriate dependent on the normality of data.ResultsEighty-one webpages were included. Urologists and hospitals were the most common producers with 15 (18%) each. Seventy-four (91%) webpages contained specific information on treatment for erectile dysfunction and 15 (19%) contained advertisements. Seventeen (21%) webpages were HON code certified. The median DISCERN score was 35 (IQR 26.5-44) out of 80. The mean combined readability score was 12.32 (SD 1.91). The median JAMA benchmark score was 1 (IQR 1-2) out of 4. Google rank had a small negative correlation with DISCERN score (τ = -0.16, P = .036). HON code certified webpages had higher DISCERN scores (median of 44 [IQR 35-58.5] vs 32.5 [IQR 25.25-42.25], U = 832, Z = 6561, P < .001). A linear regression was used to predict DISCERN score based on meeting each JAMA benchmark criterion (F(2, 78) = 22.7, P < .001) R 2 = 0.368, P < .001. Within this model the effects of meeting attribution (β = 11.09) and currency (β = 8.79) criterion were significant.ConclusionsThe quality of online information on treatment for erectile dysfunction is generally poor. However, easy to identify markers of quality like HON code certification, or meeting JAMA benchmark criterion for attribution and currency may help patients to navigate to better quality online information on treatment for erectile dysfunction. Webpages are written at senior high school level, above any recommendations for patient medical information. Health professionals should use validated instruments to assess the quality of online information on treatment for erectile dysfunction prior to publication to improve their utility for patients.

Project description:BackgroundYouTube is a valuable source of health-related educational material which can have a profound impact on people's behaviors and decisions. However, YouTube contains a wide variety of unverified content that may promote unhealthy behaviors and activities. We aim in this systematic review to provide insight into the published literature concerning the quality of health information and educational videos found on YouTube.MethodsWe searched Google Scholar, Medline (through PubMed), EMBASE, Scopus, Direct Science, Web of Science, and ProQuest databases to find all papers on the analysis of medical and health-related content published in English up to August 2020. Based on eligibility criteria, 202 papers were included in our study. We reviewed every article and extracted relevant data such as the number of videos and assessors, the number and type of quality categories, and the recommendations made by the authors. The extracted data from the papers were aggregated using different methods to compile the results.ResultsThe total number of videos assessed in the selected articles is 22,300 (median = 94, interquartile range = 50.5-133). The videos were evaluated by one or multiple assessors (median = 2, interquartile range = 1-3). The video quality was assessed by scoring, categorization, or based on creators' bias. Researchers commonly employed scoring systems that are either standardized (e.g., GQS, DISCERN, and JAMA) or based upon the guidelines and recommendations of professional associations. Results from the aggregation of scoring or categorization data indicate that health-related content on YouTube is of average to below-average quality. The compiled results from bias-based classification show that only 32% of the videos appear neutral toward the health content. Furthermore, the majority of the studies confirmed either negative or no correlation between the quality and popularity of the assessed videos.ConclusionsYouTube is not a reliable source of medical and health-related information. YouTube's popularity-driven metrics such as the number of views and likes should not be considered quality indicators. YouTube should improve its ranking and recommender system to promote higher-quality content. One way is to consider expert reviews of medical and health-related videos and to include their assessment data in the ranking algorithm.

Dataset Information

Is Reddit a reliable source for information on erectile dysfunction treatment?

Publications

Is Reddit a reliable source for information on erectile dysfunction treatment?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets