Accessibility of and Engagement With Videos of Colorectal Cancer Surgery Patients’ Treatment Experiences: A Multi-Platform Analysis Comparing Videos Produced by Patients and Medical Institutions

Le résumé fourni par la source

Introduction Videos of colorectal cancer surgery patients sharing their treatment experiences have been produced by both patients and the medical community, underscoring their perceived value. Since patients and medical institutions likely have different motivations for creating these videos, it is important to study the characteristics of these videos to assess what value they have to efforts to better understand and enhance the patient experience. Methods A formal search strategy was employed to identify videos on YouTube and TikTok wherein colorectal cancer surgery patients shared their experiences. Statistical analyses, including Fisher’s Exact Test and the Mann-Whitney U test, were performed to compare the characteristics of videos produced by patients (P-videos) and the medical community (M-videos). Results 491 videos were reviewed. Of these, 52.1% were classified as patient experience videos and 89.8% were created postoperatively. P-videos (n = 135) vs M-videos (n = 108) were more prevalent on TikTok (85.2% vs 18.5%) than YouTube (14.8% vs 81.5%). P-videos compared to M-videos also had more comments (median 92 (IQR 30-301) vs 12 (2-81.85), P < 0.001)), and were more often created during active cancer therapy (eg, adjuvant chemotherapy) (66.7% vs 14.8%, P < 0.001). These differences between groups remained statistically significant when stratifying by TikTok/YouTube. Conclusion The accessibility of P-videos and M-videos differs by social media platform, which has implications for the type of content viewed by patients with different online habits. P-videos more often featured patients undergoing active treatment and garnered higher engagement, possibly suggesting that the public is drawn more to unfiltered patient narratives than the messaging of medical institutions.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.