KADIN İNFERTİLİTESİNDE BİLGİ KAYNAĞI OLARAK YOUTUBE

Öz

Kısırlık, üreme çağındaki çiftleri önemli ölçüde etkiler ve tüm vakaların yaklaşık %65’ine kadın faktörleri katkıda bulunur. Psikolojik ve ekonomik yükler özellikle kadınlar için çok belirgindir. Kısırlık yaşayan kadınlar toplumsal damgalamaya maruz kalmaktadır ki bu durum psikolojik sıkıntı riskini artırmakta ve aile içi şiddet ile ekonomik zorluklar için potansiyel oluşturmaktadır. Sosyal medya ve internet, çoğu konuda günümüzde temel bir bilgi kaynağı haline gelmiştir. Dijital medyanın sağlık bilgisi için önemli bir kaynak olduğu bir çağda, bu çalışma, kadın kısırlığı hakkındaki YouTube videolarının içerik kalitesini değerlendirmeyi ve bu tür bilgilerin güvenilirliğini anlamada kritik bir boşluğu ele almayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu çalışma, “female infertility, women infertility” arama terimlerini kullanarak YouTube videolarının ayrıntılı bir analizini yürütmüştür. Videolar, Küresel Kalite Puanı (GQS), M-DISCERN ve PEMAT A/V Anlaşılabilirliği gibi ölçeklerle içerik kalitesi açısından değerlendirilmiştir. Süre, kaynak, görüntülenme sayısı, beğeniler ve yorumlar gibi video özelliklerini de incelenmiştir. Analizlerde 77 YouTube videosunun, %37,7’sinin (n=29) doğurganlık klinikleri veya hastaneler tarafından yüklendiği ve %41,6’sının (n=32) reklam içerdiği görülmüştür. Üniversitelerden veya akademik kurumlar tarafından yüklenmiş video bulunmamaktadır. Videoların %9,1'inin (n=7) toplumsal eşitsizliği ve damgalanmayı ele almaktadır. Olumsuz tona sahip, alternatif tıbbi yöntemleri tartışan veya kişisel deneyimleri paylaşmayı amaçlayan videoların daha düşük GQS puanlarına sahip olduğu bulundu (sırasıyla, p=0,025, 0,005, 0,029). Çalışma, kadın kısırlığı konusunda yüksek kaliteli YouTube içeriğinde önemli bir boşluğu vurgulayarak, bilgi arayan hastalara dikkatli olmalarını öneriyor. Kadın kısırlığında damgalanma gibi toplumsal yönleri ele alan videoların eksikliği daha empatik ve kapsamlı içeriklere ihtiyaç duyulduğunu göstermektedir. Çalışma YouTube’un kısırlıkla ilgili kaynaklarını zenginleştirmek için sağlık profesyonelleri ve akademik kurumlar arasında iş birliği gereksinimini vurgulamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kadın infertilitesi
• Youtube
• video kalitesi
• sosyal medya
• çevrimiçi sağlık

YOUTUBE AS A SOURCE OF INFORMATION ON FEMALE INFERTILITY

Öz

Infertility impacts reproductive-age couples, female factors contributing 65% of all cases. Psychological and economic burdens are profound for women. Women experiencing infertility are subject to societal stigma, elevating risk of psychological distress and increased potential for domestic violence and economic hardship. Social media and internet have become a fundamental resource on health related topics. In a digital era, social media is a key source of health information, this study aims to evaluate content quality of YouTube videos on female infertility, addressing a critical gap in understanding the reliability of such information. This study analyzed YouTube videos via search terms: female/women infertility. These videos assessed for content quality using the Global Quality Score (GQS), M-DISCERN, and PEMAT A/V Understandability. We recorded video attributes like duration, source. In our analysis of 77 YouTube videos, we found 37.7% (n=29) were uploaded by fertility clinics or hospitals, and 41.6% (n=32) contained advertising content. No videos from universities or academic institutions were included. It was observed 9.1% (n=7) of videos discussed social inequality and stigmatization. Videos with a negative tone, discussing alternative medical methods, or aimed at sharing personal experiences were found to have lower GQS scores (respectively, p=0.025, 0.005, 0.029). Our study highlights a gap in high-quality YouTube content on female infertility, urging caution for patients seeking information. The scarcity of videos addressing social aspects like stigma in female infertility points to a need for more empathetic and comprehensive content. We advocate collaboration among healthcare professionals and academic institutions to enrich YouTube's infertility-related resources.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Female infertility
• Youtube
• video quality
• social media
• online health

Kaynakça

1. Defining Infertility [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2023 Sep 11]. Available from: https://www.reproductivefacts. org/news-and-publications/fact-sheets-and-infographics/defining-infertility/
2. Inhorn MC, Patrizio P. Infertility around the globe: new thinking on gender, reproductive technologies and global movements in the 21st century. Hum Reprod Update. 2015;21(4):411–26.
3. Chandra A, Copen CE, Stephen EH. Infertility and impaired fecundity in the United States, 1982-2010: data from the National Survey of Family Growth. Natl Health Stat Rep. 2013;(67):1–18, 1 p following 19.
4. Vander Borght M, Wyns C. Fertility and infertility: Definition and epidemiology. Clin Biochem. 2018;62:2–10.
5. Bourrion B, Panjo H, Bithorel PL, de La Rochebrochard E, François M, Pelletier-Fleury N. The economic burden of infertility treatment and distribution of expenditures overtime in France: a self-controlled pre-post study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22:512.
6. The Lancet Global Health. Infertility—why the silence? Lancet Glob Health. 2022;10(6):e773.
7. Wang Y, Fu Y, Ghazi P, Gao Q, Tian T, Kong F, et al. Prevalence of intimate partner violence against infertile women in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2022;10(6):e820–30.
8. Chen J, Wang Y. Social Media Use for Health Purposes: Systematic Review. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(5):e17917.

9. Ku S, Balasubramanian A, Yu J, Srivatsav A, Gondokusumo J, Tatem AJ, et al. A systematic evaluation of youtube as an information source for male infertility. Int J Impot Res. 2021;33(6):611–5.
10. Hammarberg K, Zosel R, Comoy C, Robertson S, Holden C, Deeks M, et al. Fertility-related knowledge and information-seeking behaviour among people of reproductive age: a qualitative study. Hum Fertil. 2017;20(2):88–95.
11. Crilly P, Jair S, Mahmood Z, Moin Khan A, Munir A, Osei-Bediako I, et al. Public views of different sources of health advice:pharmacists, social media and mobile health applications. Int J Pharm Pract. 2019;27(1):88–95.
12. Sallam M, Dababseh D, Yaseen A, Al-Haidar A, Taim D, Eid H, et al. COVID-19 misinformation: Mere harmless delusions or much more? A knowledge and attitude cross-sectional study among the general public residing in Jordan. PLOS ONE. 2020;15(12):e0243264.
13. 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.
14. Fode M, Nolsøe AB, Jacobsen FM, Russo GI, Østergren PB, Jensen CFS, et al. Quality of Information in YouTube Videos on Erectile Dysfunction. Sex Med. 2020;8(3):408–13.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. Singh AG, Singh S, Singh PP. YouTube for Information on Rheumatoid Arthritis — A Wakeup Call? J Rheumatol. 2012;39(5):899–903.
18. Levin M, Wu V, Lee DJ, Cusimano MD, Lee JM. Validity and Usefulness of YouTube Videos Related to Endoscopic Transsphenoidal Surgery for Patient Information. J Neurol Surg Part B Skull Base. 2022;83(S 02):e54–9.
19. Uzun O. Assessment of Reliability and Quality of Videos on Medial Epicondylitis Shared on YouTube. Cureus. 2023;15(4):e37250.
20. Chang MC, Park D. YouTube as a Source of Patient Information Regarding Exercises and Compensated Maneuvers for Dysphagia. Healthcare. 2021; 9(8):1084.
21. PEMAT Tool for Audiovisual Materials (PEMAT-A/V) [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2023 Nov 4]. Available from: https://www.ahrq.gov/health-literacy/patient-education/pemat-av.html
22. Shoemaker SJ, Wolf MS, Brach C. Development of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT): A new measure of understandability and actionability for print and audiovisual patient information. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;96(3):395–403.
23. Brochu F, Robins S, Miner SA, Grunberg PH, Chan P, Lo K, et al. Searching the Internet for Infertility Information: A Survey of Patient Needs and Preferences. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(12):e15132.
24. Taebi M, Kariman N, Montazeri A, Alavi Majd H. Infertility Stigma: A Qualitative Study on Feelings and Experiences of Infertile Women. Int J Fertil Steril [Internet]. 2021 Jul [cited 2024 Jan 13];15(3). Available from: https://doi.org/10.22074/ijfs.2021.139093.1039
25. Whiteford LM, Gonzalez L. Stigma: The hidden burden of infertility. Soc Sci Med. 1995;40(1):27–36.
26. Sternke EA, Abrahamson K. Perceptions of Women with Infertility on Stigma and Disability. Sex Disabil. 2015;33(1):3–17.
27. Lang JJ, Giffen Z, Hong S, Demeter J, El-Zawahry A, Sindhwani P, et al. Assessing Vasectomy-Related Information on YouTube: An Analysis of the Quality, Understandability, and Actionability of Information. Am J Mens Health. 2022;16(2):155798832210947.
28. Hong Hs, Lang Jj, Damodaran S, Sindhwani P. Assessing information on YouTubeTM as a quality source for the treatment of varicoceles. Indian J Urol. 2021;37(4):339.
29. Kelly-Hedrick M, Grunberg PH, Brochu F, Zelkowitz P. “It’s Totally Okay to Be Sad, but Never Lose Hope”: Content Analysis of Infertility-Related Videos on YouTube in Relation to Viewer Preferences. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(5):e10199.