[Reliability of digital health information on stress urinary incontinence compared between different platforms].

IF 0.5 4区 医学 Q4 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Tanja Hüsch, Sita Ober, Anita Thomas, Axel Haferkamp, Matthias Saar, Jennifer Kranz
{"title":"[Reliability of digital health information on stress urinary incontinence compared between different platforms].","authors":"Tanja Hüsch, Sita Ober, Anita Thomas, Axel Haferkamp, Matthias Saar, Jennifer Kranz","doi":"10.1007/s00120-025-02593-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The interest in digital information on pelvic floor dysfunction is constantly increasing. Various digital platforms offer an easy and anonymous way for patients to seek information about their condition. However, little is known about the quality of the information on the different platforms or about the how the quality of different sites compares.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to investigate the completeness and quality of information on the search term \"stress urinary incontinence\" in comparison between different digital platforms.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A systematic analysis of the keyword search \"stress urinary incontinence\" was performed on Google and the social networks Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and LinkedIn. The first 30 search results on each platform were evaluated. The results were categorized according to information content and readability. The Health On the Net Foundation (HON) seal was used to assess medical quality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The proportion of informative content was highest on YouTube (97%) and Google (93%). Content was predominantly provided by professional organizations on Google and YouTube. Information on conservative therapies dominated across all platforms. Surgical therapies were only discussed in up to 63% of results on Google and in up to 50% of results on YouTube. In most cases, there was also no comprehensive presentation of all surgical options. The readability of the texts was unsuitable for laypersons on all platforms, and HON certification was only present on Google (37%) and YouTube (3%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results offer practical insights into the quality of digital information on stress urinary incontinence. However, they show deficits in readability and comprehensive presentation of surgical therapies. The physician-patient relationship remains indispensable for taking individual needs into account and avoiding misinformation.</p>","PeriodicalId":29782,"journal":{"name":"Urologie","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urologie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-025-02593-7","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The interest in digital information on pelvic floor dysfunction is constantly increasing. Various digital platforms offer an easy and anonymous way for patients to seek information about their condition. However, little is known about the quality of the information on the different platforms or about the how the quality of different sites compares.

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the completeness and quality of information on the search term "stress urinary incontinence" in comparison between different digital platforms.

Materials and methods: A systematic analysis of the keyword search "stress urinary incontinence" was performed on Google and the social networks Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and LinkedIn. The first 30 search results on each platform were evaluated. The results were categorized according to information content and readability. The Health On the Net Foundation (HON) seal was used to assess medical quality.

Results: The proportion of informative content was highest on YouTube (97%) and Google (93%). Content was predominantly provided by professional organizations on Google and YouTube. Information on conservative therapies dominated across all platforms. Surgical therapies were only discussed in up to 63% of results on Google and in up to 50% of results on YouTube. In most cases, there was also no comprehensive presentation of all surgical options. The readability of the texts was unsuitable for laypersons on all platforms, and HON certification was only present on Google (37%) and YouTube (3%).

Conclusion: The results offer practical insights into the quality of digital information on stress urinary incontinence. However, they show deficits in readability and comprehensive presentation of surgical therapies. The physician-patient relationship remains indispensable for taking individual needs into account and avoiding misinformation.

[不同平台间压力性尿失禁数字健康信息可靠性比较]。
背景:对骨盆底功能障碍数字信息的兴趣不断增加。各种数字平台为患者提供了一种简单而匿名的方式来寻求有关他们病情的信息。然而,人们对不同平台上的信息质量知之甚少,也不知道不同网站的质量如何比较。目的:本研究的目的是比较不同数字平台上“压力性尿失禁”搜索词的信息完整性和质量。材料与方法:系统分析谷歌及Facebook、YouTube、Instagram、LinkedIn等社交网络上“压力性尿失禁”关键词搜索情况。对每个平台上的前30个搜索结果进行评估。根据信息内容和可读性对结果进行分类。使用网络健康基金会(HON)印章评估医疗质量。结果:YouTube(97%)和b谷歌(93%)上的信息内容比例最高。内容主要由b谷歌和YouTube上的专业机构提供。保守疗法的信息在所有平台上都占主导地位。在b谷歌上,只有63%的结果讨论了手术治疗,而在YouTube上,这一比例高达50%。在大多数情况下,也没有全面的介绍所有的手术选择。文本的可读性在所有平台上都不适合外行,只有b谷歌(37%)和YouTube(3%)获得了HON认证。结论:该结果对压力性尿失禁数字化信息的质量提供了实用的见解。然而,它们在可读性和外科治疗的全面介绍方面存在缺陷。医患关系对于考虑个人需求和避免错误信息仍然是不可或缺的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Urologie
Urologie UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信