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:

The impact of misinformation on patient perceptions at a men’s health clinic: a cross-sectional study

International Journal of Impotence Research (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Misinformation is a rising concern for providers and patients alike. We aimed to assess where patients acquire information prior to their andrological urologic appointment and assess patients’ perception regarding the reliability of this information. A cross-sectional study was conducted at an outpatient men’s health clinic between June and August of 2022 with questionnaires distributed to adult males seen for their primary visit. The study included 314 consenting adult patients who independently completed the questionnaire (mean age: 51.2 ± 17.2). Overall, 55.1% of patients indicated they searched for their condition online. However, 39.2% and 27.7% of respondents agreed and strongly agreed, respectively, that misinformation is a concern when searching for health information. Only 59.9% of patients discussed their concerns with others and those that did not chose not wanting to (65.1%) as their top choice. However, 27.4% of respondents were embarrassed to do so. Finally, 38.2% and 12.4% of patients agreed and strongly agreed, that learning information prior to your appointment affects their relationship with the physician. These findings emphasize the need for urologists to be aware of where their patients are gathering health information and to address concerns regarding misinformation.

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: Likert scale survey responses for select questions.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data obtained is available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of the authors.

References

  1. Patrick M, Venkatesh RD, Stukus DR. Social media and its impact on health care. Ann Allergy, Asthma Immunol. 2022;128:139–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ANAI.2021.09.014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Suarez-Lledo V, Alvarez-Galvez J. Prevalence of health misinformation on social media: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23:e17187. https://www.jmir.org/2021/1/e17187.10.2196/17187.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Chou WYS, Oh A, Klein WMP. Addressing health-related misinformation on social media. JAMA. 2018;320:2417–8. https://doi.org/10.1001/JAMA.2018.16865.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Munich Security Conference. Accessed August, 2023. https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/munich-security-conference.

  5. Krishna A, Thompson TL. Misinformation about health: a review of health communication and misinformation scholarship. Am Behav Scientist. 2021;65:316–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764219878223/FORMAT/EPUB.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Schloegl I, Köhn FM, Dinkel A, Schulwitz H, Gschwend JE, Bosinski HAG, et al. Education in sexual medicine – a nationwide study among German urologists/andrologists and urology residents. Andrologia. 2017;49:e12611. https://doi.org/10.1111/AND.12611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Jia X, Pang Y, Liu LS. Online health information seeking behavior: a systematic review. Healthcare. 2021;9. https://doi.org/10.3390/HEALTHCARE9121740.

  9. Daraz L, Morrow AS, Ponce OJ, Beuschel B, Farah MH, Katabi A, et al. Can patients trust online health information? A meta-narrative systematic review addressing the quality of health information on the internet. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34:1884–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11606-019-05109-0.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Tonsaker T, Gillian M, Trpkov C. Health information on the Internet Gold mine or minefield? Can Fam Physician. 2014;60:407–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Verma G, Bhardwaj A, Aledavood T, De Choudhury M, Kumar S. Examining the impact of sharing COVID-19 misinformation online on mental health. Sci Rep. 2022;12:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-11488-y.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Dubin JM, Aguiar JA, Lin JS, Greenberg DR, Keeter MK, Fantus RJ, et al. The broad reach and inaccuracy of men’s health information on social media: analysis of TikTok and Instagram. Int J Impot Res. Published online 2022:1. https://doi.org/10.1038/S41443-022-00645-6.

  13. Beauvais C. Fake news: why do we believe it? Jt Bone Spine. 2022;89:105371. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBSPIN.2022.105371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Baldwin K, Ginsberg P, Harkaway RC. Under-reporting of erectile dysfunction among men with unrelated urologic conditions. Int J Impot Res. 2003;15:87–89. https://doi.org/10.1038/SJ.IJIR.3900948.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sunkara J. Sexual health misinformation and potential interventions among youth on social media. 2021;1:16. https://doi.org/10.18297/tce/vol1/iss1/16.

  16. 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 

  17. García-Cano-fernández AM, Szczesniewski-Dudzik JJ, García-Tello A, Diego-García V, Boronat-Catalá J, Llanes-González L. Quality of bladder cancer information on YouTube. Cent Eur J Urol. 2022;75:248–51. https://doi.org/10.5173/CEJU.2022.151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Toprak T, Yilmaz M, Ramazanoglu MA, Verit A, Schlager D, Miernik A. YouTube is inadequate as an information source on delayed ejaculation. Int J Impot Res. 2023;35:392–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/S41443-022-00559-3.

  19. Di Bello F, Ruvolo CC, Cilio S, Rocca RL, Capece M, Creta M, et al. Testicular cancer and YouTube: what do you expect from a social media platform? Int J Urol. 2022;29:685–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/IJU.14871.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 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;11:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1093/SEXMED/QFAC020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. WellPrept | Let’s fix clinic day. Accessed August, 2023. https://wellprept.com/.

  22. Kingsberg SA. Taking a sexual history. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2006;33:535–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.OGC.2006.09.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by the SMSNA Scholars in Sexuality Research Grant.

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Dhiraj S. Bal, Kapilan Panchendrabose.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Max Rady College of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada

    Dhiraj S. Bal, Kapilan Panchendrabose & Micah Grubert Van Iderstine

  2. Department of Surgery, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada

    Premal Patel

Authors
  1. Dhiraj S. Bal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kapilan Panchendrabose
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Micah Grubert Van Iderstine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Premal Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

KP was responsible for conception and design, acquisition, analysis, interpretation of data, drafting, revising, and final approval of the work. DSB was responsible for acquisition, analysis, interpretation of data, drafting, revising, and final approval of the work. MGVI was responsible for analysis, interpretation of data, drafting, revising, and final approval of the work. PP was responsible for conception and design, acquisition, analysis, interpretation of data, drafting, revising, and final approval of the work. All authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Premal Patel.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

PP is a consultant for Boston Scientific. The remaining authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

Approval for this study was obtained from the University of Manitoba’s Health and Research Ethics Board (HS25526).

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

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

Bal, D.S., Panchendrabose, K., Van Iderstine, M.G. et al. The impact of misinformation on patient perceptions at a men’s health clinic: a cross-sectional study. Int J Impot Res (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-023-00790-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-023-00790-6

Search

Advanced search

Quick links