Quality and readability of online patient information on treatment for erectile dysfunction

Pattenden, Trent A.; Raleigh, Rachael; Pattenden, Elle; Thangasamy, Isaac

doi:10.1002/bco2.87

Cited by 15 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar studies analysing online information on novel therapies using DISCERN and readability scores concurrently report findings consistent with this study (Davuluri et al, 2021; Pandya et al, 2021). Online medical information containing low to moderate quality, a reading level that is higher than recommended, and variation between sources are all findings reported in current literature (Davuluri et al, 2021; Kloosterboer et al, 2021; Pandya et al, 2021; Pattenden et al, 2021). Physicians should fill in the gap of patient interpretation of online content to ensure patients pursue the treatments best suited for them.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 52%

“…Online medical information containing low to moderate quality, a reading level that is higher than recommended, and variation between sources are all findings reported in current literature (Davuluri et al, 2021;Kloosterboer et al, 2021;Pandya et al, 2021;Pattenden et al, 2021). Physicians should fill in the gap of patient interpretation of online content to ensure patients pursue the treatments best suited for them.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In an era dominated by online content, patients with varying literacy rates actively seek health information from online websites (Zhao & Zhang, 2017). Particularly in the field of ED, several studies have highlighted the poor quality of information being portrayed online describing ED and its management (Pattenden et al, 2021). However, there is a paucity of data analysing the content describing shock wave therapy for ED.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Assessing the quality and readability of online content on shock wave therapy for erectile dysfunction

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patients are becoming increasingly reliant on online platforms for obtaining health information. Previous research has shown that the quality of information available on the internet regarding novel medical therapies is generally poor and frequently misleading. Shock wave therapy represents a novel restorative therapy for erectile dysfunction (ED) that has recently gained attention. We hypothesised that online sources regarding shock wave therapy for ED would be fraught with misleading claims and unreliable health information. Our objective was to evaluate the quality and readability of online medical information on shock wave therapy as a treatment for ED. Websites were generated using a Google search of ‘shock wave therapy for erectile dysfunction’ with location filters disabled. Readability was analysed using the Readable software (http://readable.com, Horsham, United Kingdom). Quality was assessed independently by three reviewers using the DISCERN tool. Articles were subdivided into those from private clinic websites and those from universities or news media websites. Statistical analysis was conducted using the Student's t test. Nine articles that resulted from the Google search had mean readability scores as follows: Flesch–Kincaid grade level (10.8), Gunning–Fog Index (13.67), Coleman–Liau Index (12.74), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index (13.33), FORCAST Grade Level (11.33), and Automated Readability Index (11.08). The mean Flesch Reading Ease score was 46.4. The articles had a mean DISCERN score of 3.1, suggesting ‘moderate quality’ content. Articles from universities (n = 2) or news sources (n = 3) had significantly higher DISCERN scores than articles from private medical practices (n = 4). There was no difference in readability scores between the groups. Articles from private clinics are just as readable as those from universities or news media, but they are significantly more biased and misleading. The current online material relating to shock wave therapy for ED may not adequately inform patients in their medical decisions making, thereby necessitating closer collaboration between the sources disseminating information and urologists.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 52%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessing the quality and readability of online content on shock wave therapy for erectile dysfunction

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The authors correlated expression levels with histologic grades and found patterns consistent with a tumor suppressor activity. Pattenden et al 7 performed an interesting and emerging space study of erectile dysfunction with a focus on the quality/readability of patient online information. Imagine having Google as your data collection base.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Pattenden et al 7 performed an interesting and emerging space study of erectile dysfunction with a focus on the quality/readability of patient online information. Imagine having Google as your data collection base.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

BJUI Compass 2021 year‐end review

Davis

2021

BJUI Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accuracy of prostate cancer screening recommendations for high‐risk populations on YouTube and TikTok

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate content quality and racial/ethnic representation, particularly of high-risk cohorts, of prostate cancer screening videos on You-Tube (YT) and TikTok (TK). Materials and Methods: The top 50 videos populated for the search term 'prostate cancer screening' on YT and TK that met inclusion criteria were retrieved in a cachecleared browser. Three reviewers analysed all videos using validated criteria for the quality of consumer health information (DISCERN and Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool [PEMAT]). High quality was defined as follows: DISCERN ≥ 4, PEMAT understandability ≥75% and PEMAT actionability ≥75%. A 5-point Likert scale was used to demonstrate the level of misinformation compared to American Urological Association and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Perceived race and ethnicity of people in the videos were assessed by consensus approach.Results: TK videos were shorter (median 3.7 vs. 0.5 min, p < 0.001) and had more views per month (5437.5 vs. 19.3, p = 0.03) than YT videos. Perceived Black and Hispanic representation was present in 10% and 6% of YT videos and 20% and 12% of TK videos, respectively. High-risk racial/ethnic groups were explicitly discussed in 46% of YT videos and 8% of TK videos. A total of 98% of YT videos and 100% of TK videos had low-to moderate-quality consumer health information, and 88% of YT videos and 100% of TK videos had moderate to high levels of misinformation based on screening guidelines.Conclusions: YT and TK videos about prostate cancer screening are widely viewed but do not provide quality consumer health information. Black and Hispanic men remain under-represented on both platforms, and high-risk racial groups were not discussed in most videos despite the importance for screening criteria. The low understandability and actionability, significant misinformation and lack of diversity in online videos support the need for higher quality videos with adequate attention to high-risk ethnic cohorts.

show abstract

Quality and readability of online patient information on treatment for erectile dysfunction

Cited by 15 publications

References 31 publications

Assessing the quality and readability of online content on shock wave therapy for erectile dysfunction

Assessing the quality and readability of online content on shock wave therapy for erectile dysfunction

BJUI Compass 2021 year‐end review

Accuracy of prostate cancer screening recommendations for high‐risk populations on YouTube and TikTok

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About