ArticleCureus2025
Consistency and Completeness of YouTube Condom Use Instructions Compared to Health Organisation Guidelines.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCorrect condom use is essential for preventing sexually transmitted infections (STIs), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and unintended pregnancies, yet significant knowledge gaps persist, especially among young people in India. YouTube is widely used for sexual-health information, but its engagement-driven algorithm often promotes videos with high views rather than high accuracy, increasing the risk of misinformation. Limited evidence exists on the accuracy and completeness of condom-use instructions available to Indian audiences.
objectiveTo analyze condom-use steps presented in popular YouTube videos in English, Hindi, and Tamil, and compare them with the National Health Mission (NHM) condom-use guidelines.
methodsA cross-sectional content analysis was conducted on 30 YouTube videos (15 in English, eight in Hindi, seven in Tamil) identified through predefined multilingual keywords in incognito search. Videos were evaluated using a 16-point Total Score (T Score) and an 8-point Vital Score (V Score), both developed by the authors based on the NHM condom-use guidelines. Descriptive statistics were used to assess completeness, accuracy, and presentation patterns.
resultsMajor instructional gaps were observed across all four steps of condom use. On average, videos mentioned 2.6 of five instructions (52%) for Step 1 (opening), 2.5 of three instructions (83.3%) for Step 2 (application), 0.5 of three instructions (16.7%) for Step 3 (during sex), and 1.7 of five instructions (34%) for Step 4 (disposal). English-language videos performed best (mean V Score: 4.7/8), followed by Hindi (4.4/8) and Tamil (3.0/8). Videos with >10 million views, those published by channels with 10,000-100,000 subscribers, and videos with >500 comments were significantly associated with higher instructional quality. No video demonstrated all eight essential steps.
conclusionThe analyzed YouTube videos did not consistently follow the step-by-step NHM Condom Use Guidelines, with lower frequencies of instruction during the "during sex" and disposal stages and incomplete coverage even within more frequently mentioned steps. These instructional gaps mirror documented user errors, suggesting that suboptimal online content may indirectly contribute to improper condom-use practices. Improving the completeness and stage-wise consistency of videos - preferably through professional review and alignment with freely available NHM guidelines - may enhance the reliability of YouTube as a sexual-health education resource.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.