Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A cross-sectional quality assessment of TikTok content on benign prostatic hyperplasia

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

With an increasing reliance on online sources for medical information, we studied the quality and completeness of health literacy videos on TikTok regarding BPH.

Methods

A cross-sectional systematic evaluation of TikTok videos using the search term “Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia” was performed on 14th April 2023, and included 49 patient information and educational videos. The videos were then analysed by two reviewers and scored using two instruments: the DISCERN instrument and a completeness analysis.

Results

Of the 49 videos, 38 were created by healthcare professionals (HCPs). The average length of each video was 62.7 ± 59.3 s, with a large average number of total views (24,990.1 ± 109,534.9 views). The DISCERN score trended higher in every category in videos published by HCPs compared to non-HCPs, with HCPs providing a statistically significant increase in reliability (19.0,14.6, p < 0.05) and total score (29.4,23, p < 0.05). Majority of videos were deemed as poor or worse (91.8%) in quality. The completeness of the videos’ content was also evaluated across five categories with an average score of 2.53 ± 2.1 out of the maximum 12. The DISCERN scores did not correlate with the degree of completeness of the videos (r = 0.226).

Conclusion

BPH videos on TikTok have a wide reach, but the videos are mostly of low quality and completeness. Future videos should be made with quality and completeness in mind given the large viewership and more can be done to evaluate the extent of BPH misinformation and its impact on patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during the study that is relevant is included in the published paper. The datasets generated during and/or analysed during this study is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Roehrborn CG (2008) Pathology of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Int J Impot Res 20(Suppl 3):S11–S18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Barry MJ, Fowler FJ Jr, O’Leary MP, Bruskewitz RC, Holtgrewe HL, Mebust WK et al (2017) The American Urological Association symptom index for benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 197(2S):S189–S197

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Foo KT (2017) Pathophysiology of clinical benign prostatic hyperplasia. Asian J Urol 4(3):152–157

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Djavan B, Fong YK, Harik M, Milani S, Reissigl A, Chaudry A et al (2004) Longitudinal study of men with mild symptoms of bladder outlet obstruction treated with watchful waiting for four years. Urology 64(6):1144–1148

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Emberton M, Cornel EB, Bassi PF, Fourcade RO, Gomez JM, Castro R (2008) Benign prostatic hyperplasia as a progressive disease: a guide to the risk factors and options for medical management. Int J Clin Pract 62(7):1076–1086

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. de la Rosette JJ, Alivizatos G, Madersbacher S, Perachino M, Thomas D, Desgrandchamps F et al (2001) EAU Guidelines on benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Eur Urol 40(3):256–263

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hesse BW, Moser RP, Rutten LJ (2010) Surveys of physicians and electronic health information. N Engl J Med 362(9):859–860

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Van Riel N, Auwerx K, Debbaut P, Van Hees S, Schoenmakers B (2017) The effect of Dr Google on doctor-patient encounters in primary care: a quantitative, observational, cross-sectional study. BJGP Open. 1(2):833

    Google Scholar 

  9. Oser SM, Stuckey HL, Parascando JA, McGinley EL, Berg A, Oser TK (2019) Glycated hemoglobin differences among blog-reading adults with type 1 diabetes compared with those who do not read blogs: cross-sectional study. JMIR Diabetes 4(2):e13634

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Wang Y, McKee M, Torbica A, Stuckler D (2019) Systematic literature review on the spread of health-related misinformation on social media. Soc Sci Med 240:112552

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Montag C, Yang H, Elhai JD (2021) On the psychology of TikTok use: a first glimpse from empirical findings. Front Public Health 9:641673

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Anderson KE (2020) Getting acquainted with social networks and apps: it is time to talk about TikTok. Emerald Insight. 37:4

    Google Scholar 

  13. Tam J, Porter EK, Lee UJ (2022) Examination of information and misinformation about urinary tract infections on TikTok and YouTube. Urology 168:35–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Babar M, Loloi J, Patel RD, Singh S, Azhar U, Maria P et al (2022) Cross-sectional and comparative analysis of videos on erectile dysfunction treatment on YouTube and TikTok. Andrologia 54(5):e14392

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Xu AJ, Taylor J, Gao T, Mihalcea R, Perez-Rosas V, Loeb S (2021) TikTok and prostate cancer: misinformation and quality of information using validated questionnaires. BJU Int 128(4):435–437

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. O’Sullivan NJ, Nason G, Manecksha RP, O’Kelly F (2022) The unintentional spread of misinformation on “TikTok”; a paediatric urological perspective. J Pediatr Urol 18(3):371–375

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Siegal AR, Ferrer FA, Baldisserotto E, Malhotra NR (2022) The assessment of TikTok as a source of quality health information on varicoceles. Urology 2:1

    Google Scholar 

  18. Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R (1999) DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health 53(2):105–111

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Goobie GC, Guler SA, Johannson KA, Fisher JH, Ryerson CJ (2019) YouTube videos as a source of misinformation on idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Ann Am Thorac Soc 16(5):572–579

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sun Y, Zhang Y, Gwizdka J, Trace CB (2019) Consumer evaluation of the quality of online health information: systematic literature review of relevant criteria and indicators. J Med Internet Res 21(5):e12522

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Kong W, Song S, Zhao YC, Zhu Q, Sha L (2021) TikTok as a health information source: assessment of the quality of information in diabetes-related videos. J Med Internet Res 23(9):e30409

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Bernstein A, Zhu M, Loloi J, Babar M, Winokur N, Wysocki M et al (2023) TikTok as a source of information regarding premature ejaculation: a qualitative assessment. Sex Med 11(2):20

    Google Scholar 

  23. Tanwar R, Khattar N, Sood R, Makkar A (2015) Benign prostatic hyperplasia related content on YouTube: unregulated and concerning. Recenti Prog Med 106(7):337–341

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Al-Maroof RS, Ayoubi K, Alhumaid K, Aburayya A, Alshurideh MT, Alfaisal RM et al (2021) The acceptance of social media video for knowledge acquisition, sharing and application: a com-parative study among YouTube users and TikTok Users’ for medical purposes. Int J Data Netw Sci 2:8

    Google Scholar 

  25. Klassen KM, Borleis ES, Brennan L, Reid M, McCaffrey TA, Lim MS (2018) What people “Like”: analysis of social media strategies used by food industry brands, lifestyle brands, and health promotion organizations on Facebook and Instagram. J Med Internet Res 20(6):e10227

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Hurley K (2022) ‘Kia Boyz’ viral TikTok trend sparks nationwide thefts of Kia and Hyundai cars. CBT News. 85:96

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kamil A. TikTok user licks toilet bowl, starts ‘coronavirus challenge’. 2020.

  28. Hassan MWaC. A 13-year-old died in Ohio after participating in a Benadryl TikTok ‘challenge’. CNN. 2023.

  29. Kim SK, Seok H, Park HJ, Jeon HS, Kang SW, Lee BC et al (2015) Inhibitory effect of curcumin on testosterone induced benign prostatic hyperplasia rat model. BMC Complement Altern Med 15:380

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Stevenson FA, Kerr C, Murray E, Nazareth I (2007) Information from the Internet and the doctor-patient relationship: the patient perspective–a qualitative study. BMC Fam Pract 8:47

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Kivits J (2006) Informed patients and the internet: a mediated context for consultations with health professionals. J Health Psychol 11(2):269–282

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore

    Hoi Pong Nicholas Wong, Vikneshwaren Senthamil Selvan & Jing Yang Lee

  2. Department of Urology, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore

    Wei Zheng So & Ho Yee Tiong

  3. Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

    Collin Elijah Rui Hong Ho

Authors
  1. Hoi Pong Nicholas Wong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wei Zheng So
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vikneshwaren Senthamil Selvan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jing Yang Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Collin Elijah Rui Hong Ho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ho Yee Tiong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

HPNW: project development, data analysis, manuscript writing. WZS: project development. VSS: data collection, manuscript writing. JYL: data collection, manuscript writing. CERHH: manuscript writing. HYT: project development, manuscript writing. All authors approved and submitted the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hoi Pong Nicholas Wong.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors do not declare any conflict of interests. DSRB approval was not required for this study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 39 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wong, H., So, W.Z., Senthamil Selvan, V. et al. A cross-sectional quality assessment of TikTok content on benign prostatic hyperplasia. World J Urol 41, 3051–3057 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04601-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04601-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation