Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29467119›Full record

ArticleJMIR public health and surveillance2018

Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis YouTube Videos: Content Evaluation.

Aleksandar Kecojevic, Corey Basch, Charles Basch, William Kernan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. [Sexual health information on social media: a systematic scoping review].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Aleksandar KecojevicDepartment of Public Health, William Paterson University, Wayne, NJ, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4331-9161
Corey BaschDepartment of Public Health, William Paterson University, Wayne, NJ, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4862-4229
Charles BaschTeachers College, Columbia University, New York City, NY, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8022-0959
William KernanDepartment of Public Health, William Paterson University, Wayne, NJ, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2495-754X
William Paterson University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAntiretroviral (ARV) medicines reduce the risk of transmitting the HIV virus and are recommended as daily pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in combination with safer sex practices for HIV-negative individuals at a high risk for infection, but are underused in HIV prevention. Previous literature suggests that YouTube is extensively used to share health information. While pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a novel and promising approach to HIV prevention, there is limited understanding of YouTube videos as a source of information on PrEP.

objectiveThe objective of this study was to describe the sources, characteristics, and content of the most widely viewed PrEP YouTube videos published up to October 1, 2016.

methodsThe keywords "pre-exposure prophylaxis" and "Truvada" were used to find 217 videos with a view count >100. Videos were coded for source, view count, length, number of comments, and selected aspects of content. Videos were also assessed for the most likely target audience.

resultsThe total cumulative number of views was >2.3 million, however, a single Centers for Disease Control and Prevention video accounted for >1.2 million of the total cumulative views. A great majority (181/217, 83.4%) of the videos promoted the use of PrEP, whereas 60.8% (132/217) identified the specific target audience. In contrast, only 35.9% (78/217) of the videos mentioned how to obtain PrEP, whereas less than one third addressed the costs, side effects, and safety aspects relating to PrEP. Medical and academic institutions were the sources of the largest number of videos (66/217, 30.4%), followed by consumers (63/217, 29.0%), community-based organizations (CBO; 48/217, 22.1%), and media (40/217, 18.4%). Videos uploaded by the media sources were more likely to discuss the cost of PrEP (P<.001), whereas the use of PrEP was less likely to be promoted in videos uploaded by individual consumers (P=.002) and more likely to be promoted in videos originated by CBOs (P=.009). The most common target audience for the videos was gay and bisexual men.

conclusionsYouTube videos can be used to share reliable PrEP information with individuals. Further research is needed to identify the best practices for using this medium to promote and increase PrEP uptake.

Indexed as

pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP)Truvadavideo content.YouTube

Identifiers

PMID29467119
PMCPMC5842325
OpenAlexW2788253105

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.