Premium
Characteristics of pelvic organ prolapse content available on social media
Author(s) -
Pace Lauren A.,
Herbert Amber S.,
Malik Rena D.
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
neurourology and urodynamics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.918
H-Index - 90
eISSN - 1520-6777
pISSN - 0733-2467
DOI - 10.1002/nau.24673
Subject(s) - medicine , social media , odds ratio , quality (philosophy) , logistic regression , confidence interval , multivariate analysis , univariate , content analysis , odds , family medicine , medical education , multivariate statistics , world wide web , social science , philosophy , statistics , mathematics , epistemology , sociology , computer science
Aims To analyze the quality, understandability, and actionability of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) content and to characterize creators of content and treatment options discussed on social media platforms YouTube, Instagram, and Pinterest. Methods A cross‐sectional, qualitative study was conducted for each platform. A search for “pelvic organ prolapse” was conducted and the first 100 relevant results analyzed. Data collected include source characteristics, treatments discussed, and scores for each criterion of validated Patient Education Materials and Assessment Tool and DISCERN metrics to evaluate quality, actionability, and understandability. The χ 2 analysis, univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were done to assess correlations and the impact of variables on outcomes of interest across platforms. Results Low to moderate quality was present in 74.1% of posts. Poor understandability was seen in 37.1% of posts, and 56.1% had poor actionability. The most common publisher of content overall was health and wellness or physical therapy groups (44.6%). The most common YouTube publisher was doctors, hospitals, or clinics (49%). Pelvic floor muscle training was the most discussed treatment overall (57.4%). On YouTube surgery was discussed more frequently than Instagram or Pinterest (58% vs. 11% vs. 43%, p < 0.001. Pinterest posts had better understandability ratings than YouTube videos (odds ratio = 0.19; 95% confidence interval: [0.10–0.36]; p < 0.001). Conclusion Information on popular platforms regarding POP demonstrates inconsistent quality and poor understandability and actionability. There is an opportunity for health care providers to direct patients to curated lists of high‐quality educational content on these platforms. Awareness of information available on social media is an increasingly important aspect of patient care.