-
Tytuł:
-
Comparison of online health information between different digital platforms for pelvic organ prolapse.
-
Autorzy:
-
Hüsch T; Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, University Medical Center of Johannes Gutenberg University, Langenbeckstr. 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany. .
Ober S; Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, University Medical Center of Johannes Gutenberg University, Langenbeckstr. 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany.; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany.
Haferkamp A; Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, University Medical Center of Johannes Gutenberg University, Langenbeckstr. 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany.
Naumann G; Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Helios Hospital Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany.
Tunn R; Department of Urogynecology, St. Hedwig Hospital, Berlin, Germany.
Saar M; Department of Urology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Kranz J; Department of Urology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.; Department of Urology and Kidney Transplantation, Martin-Luther-University, Halle (Saale), Germany.
-
Źródło:
-
World journal of urology [World J Urol] 2022 Oct; Vol. 40 (10), pp. 2529-2534. Date of Electronic Publication: 2022 Aug 25.
-
Typ publikacji:
-
Journal Article
-
Język:
-
English
-
Imprint Name(s):
-
Original Publication: [Berlin ; New York] : Springer International, 1983-
-
MeSH Terms:
-
Consumer Health Information*
Pelvic Organ Prolapse*/surgery
Social Media*
Comprehension ; Humans ; Internet ; Search Engine
-
References:
-
BMC Rheumatol. 2020 Nov 24;4(1):61. (PMID: 33292857)
JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2020 Apr 9;6(2):e18444. (PMID: 32250960)
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013 Jul-Aug;19(4):210-3. (PMID: 23797519)
Urology. 2011 Oct;78(4):764-7. (PMID: 21862115)
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Nov;215(5):654.e1-654.e10. (PMID: 27319368)
J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Sep;27(9):1165-70. (PMID: 22528620)
J Med Internet Res. 2006 Sep 29;8(3):e22. (PMID: 17032638)
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2018 Mar;125(3):215-222. (PMID: 29325852)
World J Orthop. 2020 Feb 18;11(2):82-89. (PMID: 32190552)
Health Informatics J. 2015 Sep;21(3):173-94. (PMID: 24670899)
Maturitas. 2015 Feb;80(2):155-61. (PMID: 25465518)
BMJ. 2016 Jul 20;354:i3853. (PMID: 27439423)
BJU Int. 2020 Jun;125(6):759-760. (PMID: 32039554)
Interact J Med Res. 2017 Sep 07;6(2):e16. (PMID: 28882813)
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Jan 19;19(1):e9. (PMID: 28104579)
-
Contributed Indexing:
-
Keywords: Communications media; Pelvic organ prolapse; Search engine; Social media; Surgery
-
Entry Date(s):
-
Date Created: 20220825 Date Completed: 20220928 Latest Revision: 20220929
-
Update Code:
-
20240104
-
PubMed Central ID:
-
PMC9512708
-
DOI:
-
10.1007/s00345-022-04129-6
-
PMID:
-
36006445
-
Purpose: To identify differences in the content and quality of online health information for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) presented in social media and digital search engines to sustainably enhance patient guidance for adequate platforms for seeking online health information on POP.
Methods: The platforms Google search, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, and YouTube were searched for the keyword "pelvic organ prolapse". Results were categorized as useful, misleading, advertising, and personal experience. Data were categorized into healthcare professionals, professional organisations, industry, patients, and individuals. The readability score and Health On the Net (HON) code seal were analyzed for Google. Descriptive and univariate analysis was performed.
Results: The source with the highest quantity of useful content was YouTube whereas LinkedIn included mostly advertisement and misleading content. YouTube and Google provided the greatest variety of health information. Social media platforms identified emotional distress and sleep disturbances as a common side effect of POP which is limited considered in clinical practice and provide novel insights of bothersome symptoms related to the disease. The spectrum of different surgical techniques was limited in all platforms. Only 12 (40.0%) were HON-qualified websites with a mean readability score of 10.4 which is considered fairly difficult to read.
Conclusion: Besides Google search, YouTube was identified as a valuable online source for POP information. However, encompassing information of surgical techniques was limited in all platforms. Urogynecological association may contribute to improve patient information by providing online health information which is complete and easy to understand.
(© 2022. The Author(s).)
