Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Analysis of patient education materials on TikTok for erectile dysfunction treatment

International Journal of Impotence Research (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Erectile dysfunction (ED) is widely prevalent and has diverse management options which are poorly understood and accessed by patients. This cross-sectional TikTok study aimed to evaluate the quality of ED educational materials and define trends in healthcare provider content development. Three reviewers independently analyzed 50 videos. Variables of interest included author characteristics, viewer engagement, content accuracy, and video quality, understandability, and actionability. Quantitative analysis was performed using the validated PEMAT and DISCERN screening tools. A wide range of treatment options were presented among the 26 healthcare and 24 non-healthcare videos, including behavioral techniques, herbs/ supplements, dietary modifications, pharmacology, and interventions. Healthcare authors tended to focus on pharmacology and intervention, and when they did discuss behavioral, herbal, or dietary options, accuracy significantly exceeded non-healthcare authors (96.2% vs. 12.5%, p < 0.001). Although healthcare-authored videos were superior in accuracy and understandability scores (p < 0.001), they had low actionability and reduced user engagement including likes (1195 vs. 4723, p = 0.050) and bookmarks (114 vs. 839, p = 0.010). Our findings indicate that despite the availability of high-quality ED treatment resources created by healthcare professionals on TikTok, engagement and actionability remain alarmingly low. Furthermore, there is substantial, readily accessible misinformation produced by non-healthcare entities. Modernized medical education paradigms, communications research, and awareness may optimize social media as a public health tool.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Visualized distribution of ratings.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data supporting this study are included in the publication.

References

  1. Sooriyamoorthy T, Leslie SW. Erectile dysfunction. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2023.

  2. Feldman HA, Goldstein I, Hatzichristou DG, Krane RJ, McKinlay JB. Impotence and its medical and psychosocial correlates: results of the Massachusetts male aging study. J Urol. 1994;151:54–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)34871-1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Capogrosso P, Colicchia M, Ventimiglia E, Castagna G, Clementi MC, Suardi N, et al. One patient out of four with newly diagnosed erectile dysfunction is a young man-worrisome picture from the everyday clinical practice. J Sex Med. 2013;10:1833–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12179.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Korfage IJ, Pluijm S, Roobol M, Dohle GR, Schroder FH, Essink-Bot ML. Erectile dysfunction and mental health in a general population of older men. J Sex Med. 2009;6:505–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.01111.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Yafi FA, Jenkins L, Albersen M, Corona G, Isidori AM, Goldfarb S, et al. Erectile dysfunction. Nat Rev Dis Prim. 2016;2:16003. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrdp.2016.3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Frederick LR, Cakir OO, Arora H, Helfand BT, McVary KT. Undertreatment of erectile dysfunction: claims analysis of 6.2 million patients. J Sex Med. 2014;11:2546–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12647.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Weiss P, Urbanek V, Kozmikova T. [Psychologic causes of erectile dysfunction]. Rozhl Chir. 1997;76:411–4. Nektere psychogenni priciny erektilnich dysfunkci.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Coppola A, Gallotti P, Montalcini T, Terruzzi I, Pujia A, Luzi L, et al. Association of erectile dysfunction with diabetic foot and its outcomes in type 2 diabetic men. Hormones (Athens). 2023;22:45–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42000-022-00407-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Demir S, Barlas IS. An independent indicator of erectile dysfunction is C-reactive protein/albumin ratio. Andrologia. 2021;53:e14073. https://doi.org/10.1111/and.14073.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Erdogru T, Kaplancan T, Aker O, Aras N. Cavernosal arterial anatomic variations and its effect on penile hemodynamic status. Eur J Ultrasound. 2001;14:141–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0929-8266(01)00155-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Soran H, Wu FC. Endocrine causes of erectile dysfunction. Int J Androl. 2005;28:28–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2605.2005.00596.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sun Y, Yu J, Chiu YL, Hsu YT. Can online health information sources really improve patient satisfaction? Front Public Health. 2022;10:940800. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.940800.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Ma M, Yin S, Zhu M, Fan Y, Wen X, Lin T, et al. Evaluation of medical information on male sexual dysfunction on baidu encyclopedia and wikipedia: comparative study. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24:e37339. https://doi.org/10.2196/37339.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Antheunis ML, Tates K, Nieboer TE. Patients’ and health professionals’ use of social media in health care: motives, barriers and expectations. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;92:426–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2013.06.020.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Van Vo T, Hoang HD, Thanh Nguyen NP. Prevalence and associated factors of erectile dysfunction among married men in Vietnam. Front Public Health. 2017;5:94. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2017.00094.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Hanna K, Arthur M, Welliver C. Erectile dysfunction and prostate diseases are the predominant Google search terms amongst men’s health topics. Int J Impot Res. 2022;34:552–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-021-00448-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rao AJ, Dy CJ, Goldfarb CA, Cohen MS, Wysocki RW. Patient preferences and utilization of online resources for patients treated in hand surgery practices. Hand (N. Y). 2019;14:277–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558944717744340.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bernstein A, Zhu M, Loloi J, Babar M, Winokur N, Wysocki M, et al. TikTok as a source of information regarding premature ejaculation: a qualitative assessment. Sex Med. 2023;11:qfac020. https://doi.org/10.1093/sexmed/qfac020.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Ostrovsky AM, Chen JR. TikTok and its role in COVID-19 information propagation. J Adolesc Health. 2020;67:730 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.07.039.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Suarez-Lledo V, Alvarez-Galvez J. Prevalence of health misinformation on social media: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23:e17187. https://doi.org/10.2196/17187.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Xu AJ, Taylor J, Gao T, Mihalcea R, Perez-Rosas V, Loeb S. TikTok and prostate cancer: misinformation and quality of information using validated questionnaires. BJU Int. 2021;128:435–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15403.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Statista. TikTok—Statistics & Facts. Accessed 4 July 2023. https://www.statista.com/topics/6077/tiktok/.

  23. Comp G, Dyer S, Gottlieb M. Is TikTok the next social media frontier for medicine? AEM Educ Train. 2021;5. https://doi.org/10.1002/aet2.10532.

  24. Xue X, Yang X, Xu W, Liu G, Xie Y, Ji Z. TikTok as an information Hodgepodge: evaluation of the quality and reliability of genitourinary cancers related content. Front Oncol. 2022;12:789956. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.789956.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Alsyouf M, Stokes P, Hur D, Amasyali A, Ruckle H, Hu B. ‘Fake News’ in urology: evaluating the accuracy of articles shared on social media in genitourinary malignancies. BJU Int. 2019;124:701–706. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14787.

  26. O’Sullivan NJ, Nason G, Manecksha RP, O’Kelly F. The unintentional spread of misinformation on ‘TikTok’; A paediatric urological perspective. J Pediatr Urol. 2022;18:371–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2022.03.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Tam J, Porter EK, Lee UJ. Examination of information and misinformation about urinary tract infections on TikTok and YouTube. Urology. 2022;168-35-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2022.06.030.

  28. Babar M, Loloi J, Patel RD, Singh S, Azhar U, Maria P, et al. Cross-sectional and comparative analysis of videos on erectile dysfunction treatment on YouTube and TikTok. Andrologia. 2022;54:e14392. https://doi.org/10.1111/and.14392.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Burnett AL, Nehra A, Breau RH, Culkin DJ, Faraday MM, Hakim LS, et al. Erectile dysfunction: AUA guideline. J Urol. 2018;200:633–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.05.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Loeb S, Malik R. Methodologies in social media research: where we are and where we still need to go? JCO Oncol Pr. 2022;18:533–5. https://doi.org/10.1200/OP.21.00871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 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;53:105–11. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.53.2.105.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. 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;96:395–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2014.05.027.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Shah YB, Glatter R, Madad S. In Layman’s terms: the power and problem of science communication. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2022:1-3. https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2022.131.

  34. Chen J, Wang Y. Social media use for health purposes: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23:e17917. https://doi.org/10.2196/17917.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Kong W, Song S, Zhao YC, Zhu Q, Sha L. TikTok as a health information source: assessment of the quality of information in diabetes-related videos. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23:e30409. https://doi.org/10.2196/30409.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Gomella LG. The rise of self-service health care in urology and other specialties. Can J Urol. 2022;29:11270–1.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Yash B. Shah, Jacob Beiriger & Sagar Mehta

  2. Department of Urology, NYU Langone, New York, NY, USA

    Seth D. Cohen

Authors
  1. Yash B. Shah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jacob Beiriger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sagar Mehta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Seth D. Cohen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: YBS, SDC; Literature Review: YBS, SM; Data Collection: YBS, JB, SM; Statistical Analysis: YBS; Writing (Original): YBS; Writing (Editing and Review): YBS, JB, SDC; Study Oversight: SDC.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seth D. Cohen.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

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

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

Shah, Y.B., Beiriger, J., Mehta, S. et al. Analysis of patient education materials on TikTok for erectile dysfunction treatment. Int J Impot Res (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-023-00726-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-023-00726-0

Search

Advanced search

Quick links