Top

Published in:

Open Access 12-08-2023 | Hysteroscopy | General Gynecology

Hysteroscopy in the new media: quality and reliability analysis of hysteroscopy procedures on YouTube™

Authors: Alessandro Libretti, Salvatore Giovanni Vitale, Stefania Saponara, Christian Corsini, Carmen Imma Aquino, Federica Savasta, Eleonora Tizzoni, Libera Troìa, Daniela Surico, Stefano Angioni, Valentino Remorgida

Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics | Issue 5/2023

Abstract

Background

Hysteroscopy plays a crucial role in diagnosing and managing various intrauterine pathologies. However, its execution can be influenced by patients’ perception and understanding, which are often shaped by digital resources such as YouTube^TM. Given its popularity and accessibility, YouTube^TM has the potential to greatly influence patients’ knowledge and expectations about this procedure, highlighting the need for accurate and reliable information.

Purpose

This study aims to assess the reliability and quality of hysteroscopy information available to patients on YouTube^TM. Understanding the nature of information patients’ access can help address their fears and potential misunderstandings about the procedure, consequently reducing the likelihood of suspension or postponement due to anxiety.

Methods

A comprehensive analysis of YouTube^TM was conducted, simulating the search process of a patient seeking information about hysteroscopy. The study evaluated the reliability and quality of 90 out of the first 100 hysteroscopy-related videos on YouTube^TM, scored by four gynecologists—two experienced hysteroscopists and two trainees. The videos were assessed for reliability and quality using the mDISCERN and Global Quality Scale (GQS) scores.

Results

The average mDISCERN and GQS scores for the evaluated videos were below the optimal three points, highlighting the lack of fluency, comprehensiveness, and reliability of the available information. Notably, while videos produced by experts, including doctors and professional channels, had higher scores, they still fell short of the minimum score of 3. These videos also were not considered more suitable for either patients or trainees. Videos that were assessed as reliable (mDISCERN ≥ 3) were observed to be longer and were more frequently produced by doctors. These videos were suggested more to trainees rather than patients. Similarly, videos deemed as fluent and comprehensive (GQS ≥ 3) were longer and were more often recommended to patients.

Conclusions

While YouTube^TM is a widely used source of medical information, the quality and reliability of hysteroscopy videos on the platform are poor. The strategic use of selected, high-quality hysteroscopy videos can enhance procedure success and alleviate patient fears. However, the unsupervised discovery of information by patients could potentially lead to procedure failure or an elevated level of stress due to misleading or incorrect information.

Powell J, Inglis N, Ronnie J, Large S (2011) The characteristics and motivations of online health information seekers: cross-sectional survey and qualitative interview study. J Med Internet Res 13:e20. https://doi.org/10.2196/JMIR.1600CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Bundorf MK, Wagner TH, Singer SJ, Baker LC (2006) Who searches the internet for health information? Health Serv Res 41:819–836. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1475-6773.2006.00510.XCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Rice RE (2006) Influences, usage, and outcomes of Internet health information searching: multivariate results from the Pew surveys. Int J Med Inform 75:8–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2005.07.032CrossRefPubMed

Atkinson NL, Saperstein SL, Pleis J (2009) Using the internet for health-related activities: findings from a national probability sample. J Med Internet Res 11:e4. https://doi.org/10.2196/JMIR.1035CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Libretti A, Surico D, Corsini C et al (2023) YouTube^TM as a source of information on acupuncture for correction of breech presentation. Cureus 15:e35182. https://doi.org/10.7759/CUREUS.35182CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Rutten LJF, Squiers L, Hesse B (2007) Cancer-related information seeking: hints from the 2003 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS). J Health Commun 11:147–156CrossRef

Madathil KC, Rivera-Rodriguez AJ, Greenstein JS, Gramopadhye AK (2015) Healthcare information on YouTube: a systematic review. Health Informatics J 21:173–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458213512220CrossRefPubMed

Hong YA, Jiang S, Liu PL (2020) Use of patient portals of electronic health records remains low from 2014 to 2018: results from a national survey and policy implications. Am J Health Promot 34:677–680. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890117119900591CrossRefPubMed

Eurostat (2022) EU citizens: over half seek health information online. Eurostat. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/edn-20220406-1. Accessed 10 Jun 2023

10.

Ceci L (2023) YouTube - Statistics & facts. Statista. https://www.statista.com/topics/2019/youtube/#topicOverview. Accessed 10 Jun 2023

11.

Kim J, Kim S (2009) Physicians’ perception of the effects of Internet health information on the doctor-patient relationship. Inform Health Soc Care 34:136–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/17538150903102422CrossRefPubMed

12.

Vitale SG, Buzzaccarini G, Riemma G et al (2023) Endometrial biopsy: Indications, techniques and recommendations. An evidence-based guideline for clinical practice. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 52:102588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogoh.2023.102588CrossRefPubMed

13.

Van Hanegem N, Prins MMC, Bongers MY et al (2016) The accuracy of endometrial sampling in women with postmenopausal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 197:147–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.12.008CrossRefPubMed

14.

Bosteels J, van Wessel S, Weyers S et al (2018) Hysteroscopy for treating subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009461.PUB4CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Carugno J, Marbin SJ, Laganà AS et al (2021) New development on hysteroscopy for endometrial cancer diagnosis: state of the art. Minerva Med 112:12–19. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0026-4806.20.07123-2CrossRefPubMed

16.

Raz N, Sigal E, Gonzalez Arjona F et al (2022) See-and-treat in-office hysteroscopy versus operative hysteroscopy for the treatment of retained products of conception: a retrospective study. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 48:2459. https://doi.org/10.1111/JOG.15327CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Laganà AS, Pacheco LA, Tinelli A et al (2018) Optimal timing and recommended route of delivery after hysteroscopic management of isthmocele? A consensus statement from the global congress on hysteroscopy scientific committee. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 25:558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2018.01.018CrossRefPubMed

18.

Vitale SG, Laganà AS, Török P et al (2022) Virtual sonographic hysteroscopy in assisted reproduction: a retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 156:112–118. https://doi.org/10.1002/IJGO.13651CrossRefPubMed

19.

Vitale SG, Della Corte L, Ciebiera M et al (2023) Hysteroscopic endometrial ablation: from indications to instrumentation and techniques—a call to action. Diagnostics 13:339. https://doi.org/10.3390/DIAGNOSTICS13030339CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Chiofalo B, Palmara V, Vilos GA et al (2021) Reproductive outcomes of infertile women undergoing “see and treat” office hysteroscopy: a retrospective observational study. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 30:147–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645706.2019.1705352CrossRefPubMed

21.

Hajšek P, Riemma G, Korošec S et al (2023) Does hysteroscopic dissection of partial uterine septum represent a risk factor for placental abnormalities in subsequent pregnancy compared with controls undergoing other hysteroscopic surgery? Results from a large case-control analysis. J Clin Med 12:177. https://doi.org/10.3390/JCM12010177CrossRef

22.

Vitale SG, Laganà AS, Caruso S et al (2021) Comparison of three biopsy forceps for hysteroscopic endometrial biopsy in postmenopausal patients (HYGREB-1): a multicenter, single-blind randomized clinical trial. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 155:425–432. https://doi.org/10.1002/IJGO.13669CrossRefPubMed

23.

Vitale SG (2020) The biopsy snake grasper sec. VITALE: a new tool for office hysteroscopy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 27:1414–1416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2019.12.014CrossRefPubMed

24.

Di Spiezio SA, Bettocchi S, Spinelli M et al (2010) Review of new office-based hysteroscopic procedures 2003–2009. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17:436–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JMIG.2010.03.014CrossRef

25.

Buzzaccarini G, Alonso Pacheco L, Vitagliano A et al (2022) Pain management during office hysteroscopy: an evidence-based approach. Medicina (Kaunas) 58:1132. https://doi.org/10.3390/MEDICINA58081132CrossRefPubMed

26.

iProspect (2008) Blended Search Results Study. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alieda-Blandford/publication/276454791_Google_Public_Libraries_and_the_Deep_Web/links/574f2ff108aebb9880441df5/Google-Public-Libraries-and-the-Deep-Web.pdf. Accessed 10 Jun 2023

27.

Singh AG, Singh S, Singh PP et al (2012) YouTube for information on rheumatoid arthritis—a wakeup call? J Rheumatol 39:899–903. https://doi.org/10.3899/JRHEUM.111114CrossRefPubMed

28.

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 Heal 53:105–111. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.53.2.105CrossRef

29.

Bernard A, Langille M, Hughes S et al (2007) A systematic review of patient inflammatory bowel disease information resources on the World Wide Web. Am J Gastroenterol 102:2070–2077. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01325.xCrossRefPubMed

30.

Cho HY, Park SH (2022) Evaluation of the quality and influence of YouTube as a source of information on robotic myomectomy. J Pers Med 12:1779. https://doi.org/10.3390/JPM12111779CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Ergul A (2021) Quality and reliability of YouTube videos on surgical treatment of uterine leiomyomas. Cureus 13:e2004. https://doi.org/10.7759/CUREUS.20044CrossRef

32.

Lee KN, Son GH, Park SH et al (2020) YouTube as a source of information and education on hysterectomy. J Korean Med Sci 35:e196. https://doi.org/10.3346/JKMS.2020.35.E196CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Hüsch T, Ober S, Haferkamp A et al (2023) Digital health information on surgical treatment options for overactive bladder is underrepresented. World J Urol 41:1891–1896. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00345-023-04447-3/TABLES/1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Abdulghani HM, Haque S, Ahmad T et al (2019) A critical review of obstetric and gynecological physical examination videos available on YouTube: content analysis and user engagement evaluation. Medicine (Baltimore) 98:e16459. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000016459CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Sorrentino F, Petito A, Angioni S et al (2021) Impact of anxiety levels on the perception of pain in patients undergoing office hysteroscopy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 303:999. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00404-020-05885-9CrossRefPubMed

36.

Badner NH, Nielson WR, Munk S et al (1990) Preoperative anxiety: detection and contributing factors. Can J Anaesth 37:444–447. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03005624CrossRefPubMed

37.

Kokanali MK, Cavkaytar S, Guzel AI et al (2014) Impact of preprocedural anxiety levels on pain perception in patients undergoing office hysteroscopy. J Chin Med Assoc 77:477–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCMA.2014.07.004CrossRefPubMed

38.

Vitale SG, Riemma G, Mikuš M et al (2022) Quality of life, anxiety and depression in women treated with hysteroscopic endometrial resection or ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Medicina (Kaunas) 58:1664. https://doi.org/10.3390/MEDICINA58111664/S1CrossRefPubMed

39.

Tracey I, Mantyh PW (2007) The cerebral signature for pain perception and its modulation. Neuron 55:377–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NEURON.2007.07.012CrossRefPubMed

40.

Zhang X, Lu B, Huang X et al (2010) Innervation of endometrium and myometrium in women with painful adenomyosis and uterine fibroids. Fertil Steril 94:730–737. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FERTNSTERT.2009.03.026CrossRefPubMed

41.

Vitale SG, Haimovich S, Riemma G et al (2020) Innovations in hysteroscopic surgery: expanding the meaning of “in-office.” Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 30:125–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645706.2020.1715437CrossRefPubMed

42.

Bettocchi S, Selvaggi L (1997) A vaginoscopic approach to reduce the pain of office hysteroscopy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 4:255–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1074-3804(97)80019-9CrossRefPubMed

43.

Vitale SG, Alonso Pacheco L, Haimovich S et al (2021) Pain management for in-office hysteroscopy. A practical decalogue for the operator. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 50:101976. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JOGOH.2020.101976CrossRefPubMed

44.

Vitale SG, Caruso S, Ciebiera M et al (2020) Management of anxiety and pain perception in women undergoing office hysteroscopy: a systematic review. Arch Gynecol Obstet 301:885–894. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00404-020-05460-2/TABLES/1CrossRefPubMed

45.

Abis P, Bigozzi MA, Dotto J et al (2020) Pain management during office hysteroscopy: a survey of hysteroscopists. Surg Technol Int 37:161–166PubMed

46.

Angioli R, De Cicco NC, Plotti F et al (2014) Use of music to reduce anxiety during office hysteroscopy: prospective randomized trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 21:454–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2013.07.020CrossRefPubMed

47.

Riemma G, Schiattarella A, Colacurci N et al (2020) Pharmacological and non-pharmacological pain relief for office hysteroscopy: an up-to-date review. Climacteric 23:376–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/13697137.2020.1754388CrossRefPubMed

48.

Lim L, Chow P, Wong CY et al (2011) Doctor-patient communication, knowledge, and question prompt lists in reducing preoperative anxiety: a randomized control study. Asian J Surg 34:175–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ASJSUR.2011.11.002CrossRefPubMed

49.

Morgan M, Dodds W, Wolfe C, Raju S (2004) Women’s views and experiences of outpatient hysteroscopy: Implications for a patient-centered service. Nurs Health Sci 6:315–320. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1442-2018.2004.00202.XCrossRefPubMed

Title: Hysteroscopy in the new media: quality and reliability analysis of hysteroscopy procedures on YouTube™
Authors: Alessandro Libretti
Salvatore Giovanni Vitale
Stefania Saponara
Christian Corsini
Carmen Imma Aquino
Federica Savasta
Eleonora Tizzoni
Libera Troìa
Daniela Surico
Stefano Angioni
Valentino Remorgida
Publication date: 12-08-2023
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keyword: Hysteroscopy
Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics / Issue 5/2023
Print ISSN: 0932-0067
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0711
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-023-07172-9

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Hysteroscopy in the new media: quality and reliability analysis of hysteroscopy procedures on YouTube™

Abstract

Background

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2023

The deviations of CD4 + T cells during peripheral blood and peritoneal fluid of endometriosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Impact of a brochure and empathetic physician communication on patients’ perception of breast biopsies

Correction to: Effect of previous uterine surgery on the operative hysteroscopic outcomes in patients with reproductive failure: analysis of 700 cases

Hyperspectral imaging as a new diagnostic tool for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia

Fetal pancreas size and maternal serum biomarkers glycated albumin and insulin-regulated aminopeptidase provide no potential for early prediction of gestational diabetes mellitus

Wearable sensors for prediction of intraamniotic infection in women with preterm premature rupture of membranes: a prospective proof of principle study