Surgical mesh information on YouTube (TM): evaluating the usage and reliability of videos for patient education
Garson Chan1,2,3, Emma Yanko2, Liang Qu3,4, Ariel Zilberlicht5, Deb Karmakar6, Athina Pirpiris7, Johan Gani3,8.
1Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada; 2College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada; 3Department of Urology, Austin Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; 4Young Urology Researchers Organisation (YURO), Melbourne, Australia; 5Division of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center, Technion University, Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Haifa, Israel; 6Mercy Health, Victoria, Australia; 7Eastern Health, Victoria, Australia; 8Department of Urology, Western Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
Introduction: Patients in search of answers to health-related questions often seek out information on the internet. The current study aims to evaluate the quality of videos on the topic of mesh pertaining to its use in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse.
Methods: A total of 100 videos on the topic of mesh on YouTubeTM were screened in this study. From that, a further 30 were selected for review. Five experts in the medical field reviewed each video anonymously, using two video assessment tools. Video characteristics were collected and evaluated. Videos were assessed based on a Global Assessment Score (GAS) and PEMAT-A/V scale for ease of patient access and comprehension. The overall correlation between raters and videos was compared by calculating intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) between GAS ratings and PEMAT-A/V ratings.
Results: The two-way mixed-effects ICC values were calculated for GAS and PEMAT-A/V for the raters and videos. For GAS ratings, the ICC for mean measurements across multiple raters was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.82-0.95), indicating ‘excellent’ inter-rater reliability. Similarly, for PEMAT-A/V ratings, the ICC was 0.96 (95% CI: 0.93-0.98), also indicating ‘excellent’ inter-rater reliability (Figure 1). The overall GAS score and recommendation was substandard, and the median PEMAT-A/V understandability score was 70% (poorly understandable). Most videos contained some form of marketing, and a scarce number had reliable sources of information (Table 1). Evidence of neutrality was low. Overall results were mixed with wide ranges in content, comprehension, and audience.
Conclusions: Through the expert assessment of videos using quality assessment tools, this current study demonstrates the overall variable quality of mesh videos on YouTubeTM and the need for further education regarding patient resources.
