Youtube’da Paylaşılan Labioplasti Videolarındaki Bilgilerin Güvenilirliğinin ve Kalitesinin Değerlendirilmesi

Yıl 2024, Sayı: Early Access

Hakan Kızılet Ozan Doğan Alper Başbuğ

https://doi.org/10.18678/dtfd.1423058

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı YouTube’da yer alan labioplasti prosedürlerine ilişkin videoları güvenilirlik ve kalite açısından değerlendirmektir.
Gereç ve Yöntemler: Youtube’da “labiaplasty” ve “labia minora reduction” arama terimleri ile bir arama yapıldı. Her bir anahtar kelime için ilk 100 video incelendi ve 42 video analiz edildi. Video türlerinin dağılımı incelendi. Videolar beş kişilik bir komite tarafından küresel kalite ölçeği (global quality scale, GQS) ve modifiye DISCERN (mDISCERN) ölçekleri kullanılarak puanlandı. Hekimler ve akademisyenler tarafından yüklenen videolar profesyoneller grubu, hastalar, ticari kuruluşlar ve yardımcı sağlık personelleri tarafından yüklenenler ise non-profesyoneller grubu olacak şekilde sınıflandırıldı.
Bulgular: Tüm videoların mDISCERN puan ortalaması 2,29±0,65, GQS puan ortalaması 2,75±0,67 idi. Profesyonel ve non-profesyonel grupları karşılaştırıldığında mDISCERN ve GQS puanı profesyonel grupta anlamlı olarak daha yüksekti (sırasıyla p=0,017 ve p=0,010). Cerrahi teknik videoları ile hastalık veya cerrahi hakkında bilgi veren videolar karşılaştırıldığında, mDISCERN ve GQS puanları bakımından anlamlı bir farklılık yokken video güç indeksi (video power index, VPI), görüntülenme oranı ve yorum sayıları açısından anlamlı farklılık mevcuttu (sırasıyla p=0,001, p=0,001 ve p=0,003). mDISCERN puanı ile VPI arasında (rs=-0,326; p=0,037), GQS puanı ile izlenme oranı arasında (rs=-0,392; p=0,010) ve GQS puanı ile VPI arasında (rs=-0,382; p=0,014) zayıf negatif korelasyonlar gözlendi.
Sonuç: YouTube labioplasti ile ilgili güvenilir bir bilgi kaynağı değildir. Düşük kaliteli videolar daha fazla etkileşim içindedir. Obstetri ve jinekoloji dernekleri bu konu hakkında Youtube’da içerik üretmelidirler.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Üreme organları, kadın, sosyal medya, video kayıt

An Evaluation of the Reliability and Quality of Information in Labiaplasty Videos Shared on YouTube

Öz

Aim: The objective of this study was to evaluate the reliability and quality of videos on YouTube about labiaplasty procedures.
Material and Methods: A search was carried out on YouTube using the search terms ‘labiaplasty’ and ‘labia minora reduction’. The first 100 videos for each keyword were evaluated and 42 videos were analyzed. The distribution of video types was examined. The videos were scored by a five-member committee using the global quality scale (GQS) and modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) scales. Videos uploaded by physicians and academicians were classified as professional, and patients, commercial entities, and allied health personnel were classified as non-professional groups.
Results: The mean mDISCERN score of all videos was 2.29±0.65, while the mean GQS score was 2.75±0.67. When professional and non-professional groups were compared, the mDISCERN and GQS scores were significantly higher in the professional group (p=0.017 and p=0.010, respectively). When surgical technique videos and videos providing information about the disease or surgery were compared, there was a significant difference in video power index (VPI), viewing rate, and number of comments (p=0.001, p=0.001, and p=0.003, respectively), while there was no significant difference in terms of mDISCERN and GQS scores. Weak negative correlations were observed between the mDISCERN score and VPI (rs=-0.326, p=0.037), between the GQS score and viewing rate (rs=-0.392, p=0.010), and between the GQS score and VPI (rs=-0.382, p=0.014).
Conclusion: YouTube is not a reliable source of information about labiaplasty. Low-quality videos receive more engagement. Obstetrics and gynecology associations should produce content on YouTube about this subject.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Genitalia, female, social media, video recording

Kaynakça

• Sharp G, Maynard P, Hudaib AR, Hamori CA, Oates J, Kulkarni J, et al. Do genital cosmetic procedures improve women's self-esteem? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Aesthet Surg J. 2020;40(10):1143-51.
• Aesthetic Plastic Surgery National Databank Statistics 2020-2021. Aesthet Surg J. 2022;42(Suppl 1):1-18.
• Mowat H, McDonald K, Dobson AS, Fisher J, Kirkman M. The contribution of online content to the promotion and normalisation of female genital cosmetic surgery: a systematic review of the literature. BMC Womens Health. 2015;15:110.
• Erdogan G. Female genital cosmetic surgery (FGCS): Evaluation of YouTube videos. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2021;50(4):102102.
• Urman A, Makhortykh M. You are how (and where) you search? Comparative analysis of web search behavior using web tracking data. J Comput Soc Sci. 2023;6(2):1-16.
• Srinivasacharlu, A. Using Youtube in colleges of education. Shanlax Int J Educ. 2020;8(2):21-4.
• Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999;53(2):105-11.
• Singh AG, Singh S, Singh PP. YouTube for information on rheumatoid arthritis--a wakeup call? J Rheumatol. 2012;39(5):899-903.
• Bernard A, Langille M, Hughes S, Rose C, Leddin D, Veldhuyzen van Zanten S. A systematic review of patient inflammatory bowel disease information resources on the World Wide Web. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102(9):2070-7.
• Osman W, Mohamed F, Elhassan M, Shoufan A. Is YouTube a reliable source of health-related information? A systematic review. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22(1):382.
• Lee KN, Son GH, Park SH, Kim Y, Park ST. YouTube as a source of information and education on hysterectomy. J Korean Med Sci. 2020;35(25):e196.
• Andan C, Aydin MF. Evaluation of the reliability and quality of YouTube videos on ovarian cysts. Cureus. 2022;14(3):e22739.
• Berman L, Berman J, Felder S, Pollets D, Chhabra S, Miles M, et al. Seeking help for sexual function complaints: what gynecologists need to know about the female patient's experience. Fertil Steril. 2003;79(3):572-6.
• Chawla S, Ding J, Mazhar L, Khosa F. Entering the misinformation age: quality and reliability of YouTube for patient information on liposuction. Plast Surg (Oakv). 2023;31(4):371-6.
• Yurdaisik I. Analysis of the most viewed first 50 videos on YouTube about breast cancer. Biomed Res Int. 2020;2020:2750148.
• Sharp G, Mattiske J, Vale KI. Motivations, expectations, and experiences of labiaplasty: a qualitative study. Aesthet Surg J. 2016;36(8):920-8.
• Dogan O, Yassa M. Major motivators and sociodemographic features of women undergoing labiaplasty. Aesthet Surg J. 2019;39(12):NP517-27.
• Koning M, Zeijlmans IA, Bouman TK, van der Lei B. Female attitudes regarding labia minora appearance and reduction with consideration of media influence. Aesthet Surg J. 2009;29(1):65-71.
• Loeb S, Sengupta S, Butaney M, Macaluso JN Jr, Czarniecki SW, Robbins R, et al. Dissemination of misinformative and biased information about prostate cancer on YouTube. Eur Urol. 2019;75(4):564-7.
• Ferhatoglu MF, Kartal A, Ekici U, Gurkan A. Evaluation of the reliability, utility, and quality of the information in sleeve gastrectomy videos shared on open access video sharing platform YouTube. Obes Surg. 2019;29(5):1477-84.