Quality of YouTube Videos on Prostate Cancer Screening for Black Men

Article Figures & Data

Table 1.

Validated Tools Used to Rate the Quality of YouTube Videos

DISCERN^* (80 Possible Points)	PEMAT^{^†} (15 Possible Points)
Explicit aims (1 to 5 pts)	Understandability (10 possible points)
Aims achieved (1 to 5 pts)	Content (0 to 1 pts) Clear purpose Word choice and style (0 to 3 pts) Common language, active voice, defines medical terms Organization (0 to 4 pts) Breaks down information into short sections, sections have headers, presented in logical sequence, provides a summary Layout and design (0 to 2 pts) Text easy to read, words easy to hear Use of visuals (0 to 1 pts) Clear illustrations
Relevance to patients (1 to 5 pts)
Sources of information (1 to 5 pts)
Currency (date) of information (1 to 5 pts)
Bias and balance (1 to 5 pts)
Additional sources (1 to 5 pts)
Reference to areas of uncertainty (1 to 5 pts)
How treatment works (1 to 5 pts)
Benefit of treatment (1 to 5 pts)
Risks of treatment (1 to 5 pts)
Consequences of no treatment (1 to 5 pts)
Quality of life (1 to 5 pts)	Actionability (4 possible points)
Other treatment options (1 to 5 pts)	Clearly identifies at least 1 action Addresses user directly Breaks down action into steps Explains how to use resources to take actions
Shared decision-making (1 to 5 pts)
Overall quality (1 to 5 pts)

Table 3.

Characteristics of the Evaluated YouTube Videos (n = 50)

Video Parameters
Average Metrics	Mean (Min – Max)		Median
Length of video (min:sec)	3:24 (1:01 – 9:44)		2:50
Views per month	579.45 (15.05 – 4578.60)		185.97
Thumbs up	119.70 (0.00 – 2326.75)		18.25
Thumbs down	8.50 (0.00 – 67.00)		1.83
Comments	19.88 (0.00 – 630.25)		0.50
Content	Percentage
Target audience	78.0% All men	22.0% Black men
Perceived presenter sex	85.7% Male	14.3% Female
Shared decision making	80% No	20% Yes
Discussed disparities	48.0% Yes	48.0% No	4.0% Unclear
Perceived presenter race	46.0% White	28.0% Other	26.0% Black
Commercial bias	74.0% No	16.0% Unclear	10.0%Yes
Year of publication (according to USPSTF changes in recommendations)	10% Before May 2012	70% May 2012 to May 2018	20% After May 2018

Table 4.

Scores of the Evaluated YouTube Videos (n = 50)

Characteristic	n	DISCERN^*		PEMAT^{^†}
Characteristic	n	Average Score	P value	Average Score	P value
Perceived target audience
All men	39	41.85	.086	9.35	.752
Black men	11	34.53		9.16
Presenter perceived race
White	23	40.82	.059	9.39	.433
Black	13	33.59		8.79
Presenter perceived sex
Male	42	39.84	.380	9.28	.559
Female	7	44.37		9.71
Commercial bias
Yes	5	30.30	.081	8.25	.290
No	37	42.39	.081	9.34	.290
Unclear	8	36.52		9.85
Year of publication (according to USPSTF changes in recommendations)
Before May 2012	5	39.95	.047	9.70	.869
May 2012 to May 2018	34	37.69	.047	9.24	.869
After May 2018	11	48.26		9.35

PEMAT, Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool; USPSTF, US Preventive Services Task Force.
↵* DISCERN measures quality of information and decision making.
↵† PEMAT measures understandability and actionability.