Kilian Schrenk1, Ramin Khoramnia2, Nicolas Feltgen3, Werner Bachmann4, Focke Ziemssen5, Jens Martin Rohrbach1, Spyridon Dimopoulos1. 1. Department für Augenheilkunde, Eberhard-Karl Universität Tübingen, Elfriede-Aulhorn-Str. 7, 72076, Tübingen, Deutschland. 2. Universitätsaugenklinik Heidelberg, 69120, Heidelberg, Deutschland. 3. Augenklinik der Universitätsmedizin Göttingen, Göttingen, Deutschland. 4. ReVis Augenklinik Aschaffenburg, Aschaffenburg, Deutschland. 5. Department für Augenheilkunde, Eberhard-Karl Universität Tübingen, Elfriede-Aulhorn-Str. 7, 72076, Tübingen, Deutschland. focke.ziemssen@med.uni-tuebingen.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the liberalization of the Therapeutic Products Advertising Act, advertising that praises, misleads or compares is still contrary to the German professional conduct. In view of the increasing commitment of financial investors and the economization in ophthalmology, this study was initiated to examine and check which (advertising) statements are affected in openly accessible videos on the YouTube platform. METHODS: Using the search terms "ophthalmologist" and "eye center" as well as predefined criteria (German origin, audio track with spoken text, duration >1 min), videos were identified and transcribed into an anonymized text version. Using a self-developed predefined questionnaire, the individual statements were then subjected to a critical review by three experts and clarity, relevance and completeness of the information were also assessed. At the same time, laypersons were asked how convincingly, comprehensibly and completely they assessed the information and whether they would want to be treated by the physicians. RESULTS: Out of 68 videos 30 met the defined inclusion criteria. Of the videos 46% focused on procedures for refractive surgery. From the experts' point of view, at least 11.8% of the individual statements were completely wrong or only slightly correct. Over 80% of the videos presented information incompletely. Perioperative and postoperative complications were only mentioned by three films. Laypersons evaluated the texts very inconsistently and could not identify the videos that contained problematic statements as assessed by the ophthalmologists. Conflicts with the legal requirements for advertising, e.g. the use of lurid superlatives were found. A balanced presentation, such as alternatives to treatment procedures was rare. There was a great need to improve the comprehensibility for laymen. CONCLUSION: Only a very small number of freely accessible videos provide scientifically founded and correct information. Until now, many ophthalmologists do not sufficiently consider the legal and moral requirements for advertising statements. Therefore, there may be negative effects on the professional image in the public eye and opportunities for health promotion remain unused.
BACKGROUND: Despite the liberalization of the Therapeutic Products Advertising Act, advertising that praises, misleads or compares is still contrary to the German professional conduct. In view of the increasing commitment of financial investors and the economization in ophthalmology, this study was initiated to examine and check which (advertising) statements are affected in openly accessible videos on the YouTube platform. METHODS: Using the search terms "ophthalmologist" and "eye center" as well as predefined criteria (German origin, audio track with spoken text, duration >1 min), videos were identified and transcribed into an anonymized text version. Using a self-developed predefined questionnaire, the individual statements were then subjected to a critical review by three experts and clarity, relevance and completeness of the information were also assessed. At the same time, laypersons were asked how convincingly, comprehensibly and completely they assessed the information and whether they would want to be treated by the physicians. RESULTS: Out of 68 videos 30 met the defined inclusion criteria. Of the videos 46% focused on procedures for refractive surgery. From the experts' point of view, at least 11.8% of the individual statements were completely wrong or only slightly correct. Over 80% of the videos presented information incompletely. Perioperative and postoperative complications were only mentioned by three films. Laypersons evaluated the texts very inconsistently and could not identify the videos that contained problematic statements as assessed by the ophthalmologists. Conflicts with the legal requirements for advertising, e.g. the use of lurid superlatives were found. A balanced presentation, such as alternatives to treatment procedures was rare. There was a great need to improve the comprehensibility for laymen. CONCLUSION: Only a very small number of freely accessible videos provide scientifically founded and correct information. Until now, many ophthalmologists do not sufficiently consider the legal and moral requirements for advertising statements. Therefore, there may be negative effects on the professional image in the public eye and opportunities for health promotion remain unused.
Entities:
Keywords:
Advertisement; Complications; Health literacy; Information; Marketing; Performance spectrum; Professional law; Treatment promise of cure