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 broad reach and inaccuracy of men’s health information on social media: analysis of TikTok and Instagram

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 36, pages 256–260 (2024)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Social media (SoMe) offers great potential to expand access to health information, but a significant proportion of users consume its content instead of consulting a physician. We sought to quantify the volume and characterize the accuracy of men’s health-related content on TikTok and Instagram. We searched TikTok and Instagram for the terms: testosterone, erectile dysfunction, male infertility, semen retention, Peyronie’s disease, and vasectomy. The top 10 hashtags for each term were used to estimate the total impressions for each term on each platform, and posts were then characterized by creator type, content type, and accuracy (1 to 5 scale). TikTok had 2,312,407,100 impressions and Instagram had 3,107,300 posts across all topics. Semen retention had the most impressions on TikTok (1,216,074,000) and posts on Instagram (1,077,000). Physicians created only a small portion of total TikTok and Instagram posts (10.3% and 12.9%, respectively). Across all topics, the accuracy of content was poor (2.6 ± 1.7), however, physician posts were more accurate than non-physician posts (mean 4.2 ± 1.2 vs 2.3 ± 1.6, p < 0.001, respectively). Men’s health content is popular on TikTok and Instagram but is not accurate. We recommend that physicians actively engage in SoMe to address misinformation.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Description of the relationship of men’s health topics, their engagement, and accuracy (1–5, where 5 is most accurate) by topic and content creators (non-physicians vs physicians).

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Readers interested in additional information on the study’s data please contact the corresponding author.

References

  1. Pew Research Center Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/social-media/?menuItem=45b45364-d5e4-4f53-bf01-b77106560d4c.

  2. Nabity-Grover T, Cheung CMK, Thatcher JB. Inside out and outside in: How the COVID-19 pandemic affects self-disclosure on social media. Int J Inf Manag. 2020;55:102188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Wiederhold BK. Social media use during social distancing. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2020;23:275–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. The Social Life of Health Information: Pew Research Center; Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/15/the-social-life-of-health-information/.

  5. Americans who primarily get news through social media are least likely to follow COVID-19 coverage, most likely to report seeing made-up news: Pews Research Center; Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2020/03/25/americans-who-primarily-get-news-through-social-media-are-least-likely-to-follow-covid-19-coverage-most-likely-to-report-seeing-made-up-news/.

  6. Bryan MA, Evans Y, Morishita C, Midamba N, Moreno M. Parental perceptions of the internet and social media as a source of pediatric health information. Acad Pediatr. 2020;20:31–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Instagram by the Numbers: Stats, Demographics & Fun Facts Available from: https://www.omnicoreagency.com/instagram-statistics/#:~:text=71%25%20of%20U.S.%20adults%20ages,between%2025%20and%2034%20years.

  8. TikTok User Statistics (2022) Available from: https://backlinko.com/tiktok-users.

  9. Iqbal M. TikTok Revenue and Usage Statistics (2022). Business of Apps. 2022.

  10. Loeb S, Taylor J, Borin JF, Mihalcea R, Perez-Rosas V, Byrne N, et al. Fake news: spread of misinformation about urological conditions on social media. Eur Urol Focus. 2020;6:437–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Loeb S, Sengupta S, Butaney M, Macaluso JN, Czarniecki SW, Robbins R, et al. Dissemination of misinformative and biased information about prostate cancer on YouTube. Eur Urol. 2019;75:564–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Comp G, Dyer S, Gottlieb M. Is TikTok the next social media frontier for medicine? AEM Educ Train. 2021;5:1–4.

  13. Fowler LR, Schoen L, Smith HS, Morain SR. Sex education on TikTok: a content analysis of themes. Health Promot Pract. 2021;23:15248399211031536.

  14. Babar M, Loloi J, Patel RD, Singh S, Azhar U, Maria P, et al. Cross-sectional and comparative analysis of videos on erectile dysfunction treatment on YouTube and TikTok. Andrologia. 2022;54:e14392.

  15. Burnett AL, Nehra A, Breau RH, Culkin DJ, Faraday MM, Hakim LS, et al. Erectile dysfunction: AUA guideline. J Urol. 2018;200:633–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Exton MS, Krüger TH, Bursch N, Haake P, Knapp W, Schedlowski M, et al. Endocrine response to masturbation-induced orgasm in healthy men following a 3-week sexual abstinence. World J Urol. 2001;19:377–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Jiang M, Xin J, Zou Q, Shen JW. A research on the relationship between ejaculation and serum testosterone level in men. J Zhejiang Univ Sci. 2003;4:236–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Elzanaty S, Malm J, Giwercman A. Duration of sexual abstinence: epididymal and accessory sex gland secretions and their relationship to sperm motility. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:221–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Levitas E, Lunenfeld E, Weiss N, Friger M, Har-Vardi I, Koifman A, et al. Relationship between the duration of sexual abstinence and semen quality: analysis of 9,489 semen samples. Fertil Steril. 2005;83:1680–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Tur-Kaspa I, Maor Y, Levran D, Yonish M, Mashiach S, Dor J. How often should infertile men have intercourse to achieve conception? Fertil Steril. 1994;62:370–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA

    Justin M. Dubin, Jonathan A. Aguiar, Jasmine S. Lin, Daniel R. Greenberg, Mary Kate Keeter, Minh N. Pham, Matthew T. Hudnall, Nelson E. Bennett, Robert E. Brannigan & Joshua A. Halpern

  2. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Northshore University Health System, Evanston, IL, USA

    Richard J. Fantus

Authors
  1. Justin M. Dubin
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jonathan A. Aguiar
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jasmine S. Lin
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Daniel R. Greenberg
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mary Kate Keeter
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Richard J. Fantus
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Minh N. Pham
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Matthew T. Hudnall
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Nelson E. Bennett
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Robert E. Brannigan
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Joshua A. Halpern
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors meet all four criteria for authorship, including. (1) Conceived and/or designed the work that led to the submission, acquired data, and/or played an important role in interpreting the results. (2) Drafted or revised the manuscript. (3) Approved the final version. (4) Agreed 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 Justin M. Dubin.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

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

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

Dubin, J.M., Aguiar, J.A., Lin, J.S. et al. The broad reach and inaccuracy of men’s health information on social media: analysis of TikTok and Instagram. Int J Impot Res 36, 256–260 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-022-00645-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-022-00645-6

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links