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:

Patient perspectives on vasectomy: findings from a TikTok® content analysis

International Journal of Impotence Research (2024)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Social media is increasingly used as a platform for patients to explore health care information. Our objective was to study the content on TikTok® in order to gain insight into the perspectives shared by the public on vasectomy. A search was performed using the hashtag ´#vasectomy´ on 12.20.2023 and the top 100 video posts from persons self-identifying as patients were included. Using an adaptation of a previously published system, a framework was created for organising and categorising the data related to vasectomy. Domains covered included reason for vasectomy, complications, vasectomy as a controversial topic in society and reference to the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson ruling. Most content originated from the United States (85.0%) and the median number of views per video was 261 200 (interquartile range (IQR) 8416-1 800 000). In 12.0% of posts, the individual clearly stated that they were under 30 years of age. Two of the commonest topics to be addressed in the videos were recovery (41.0%) and pain (40.0%). 30.0% discussed the reason for undergoing vasectomy. Reasons included women’s rights (12%), safety over tubal ligation (5.0%) and desire to be childless (4.0%). 9.0% referred to the Dobbs v. Jackson ruling. Complications were discussed in 19.0% including vasectomy failure (12.0%). 23.0% contained factually incorrect medical information. 31.0% of videos included the user voicing that vasectomy was considered to be a controversial subject. More than half of the videos (61.0%) were positive regarding the vasectomy process. Our findings reveal that vasectomy receives very high engagement on social media. This study confirms that patients do use it to share their experiences, both positive and negative. Misconceptions regarding this contraception method are common among the public and the urological community should work to address this.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data sets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Sharlip ID, Belker AM, Honig S, Labrecque M, Marmar JL, Ross LS, et al. Vasectomy: AUA guideline. J Urol. 2012;188:2482–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Drobner J, Fu MZ, Kaldany A, Velez-Leitner D. Historical review of the vasectomy: antiquated beliefs, novel techniques, and contemporary challenges. Urology. 2023;182:1–4.

  3. Zhang X, Eisenberg ML. Vasectomy utilization in men aged 18–45 declined between 2002 and 2017: Results from the United States National Survey for Family Growth data. Andrology. 2022;10:137–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jacobstein R, Radloff S, Khan F, Mimno K, Pal M, Snell J, et al. Down but not out: vasectomy is faring poorly almost everywhere—we can do better to make it a true method option. Global Health: Sci Pract. 2023;11.

  5. Sharma V, Zargaroff S, Sheth KR, Le BV, Dupree JM, Sandlow JI, et al. Relating economic conditions to vasectomy and vasectomy reversal frequencies: a multi-institutional study. J Urol. 2014;191:1835–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bole R, Lundy SD, Pei E, Bajic P, Parekh N, Vij SC. Rising vasectomy volume following reversal of federal protections for abortion rights in the United States. Int J Impot Res. 2024;36:265–268.

  7. Huang Z, Hyman MJ, Raheem OA. Trends in the Vasectomy Rate Among Privately Insured Men Aged 18-64 in the United States Between 2014 and 2021. Urology. 2023;179:80–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chen J, Wang Y. Social media use for health purposes: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23:e17917.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Dean B. TikTok user statistics. Backlinko. 2022.

  10. Dubin JM, Aguiar JA, Lin JS, Greenberg DR, Keeter MK, Fantus RJ, et al. The broad reach and inaccuracy of men’s health information on social media: analysis of TikTok and Instagram. Int J Impot Res. 2024;36:256–260.

  11. Ramkumar PN, Navarro SM, Haeberle HS, Chughtai M, Flynn ME, Mont MA. Social media and total joint arthroplasty: an analysis of patient utilization on instagram. J Arthroplast. 2017;32:2694–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Zhang TR, Able C, Ramasamy R, Kohn TP. United States vasectomy incidence rises after the reversal of Roe v. Wade in a national clinical and claims database. Fertil Steril. 2023;120:196–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Anderson DJ, Lucero M, Vining S, Daniel C, Hasoon J, Viswanath O, et al. Vasectomy regret or lack thereof. Health Psychol Res. 2022;10:38241.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Charles DK, Anderson DJ, Newton SA, Dietrich PN, Sandlow JI. Vasectomy regret among childless men. Urology. 2023;172:111–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Labrecque M, Paunescu C, Plesu I, Stacey D, Legare F. Evaluation of the effect of a patient decision aid about vasectomy on the decision-making process: a randomized trial. Contraception. 2010;82:556–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. O’Sullivan NJ, Nason G, Manecksha RP, O’Kelly F. The unintentional spread of misinformation on ‘TikTok’; A paediatric urological perspective. J Pediatr Urol. 2022;18:371–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Siegal AR, Ferrer FA, Baldisserotto E, Malhotra NR. The Assessment of TikTok as a Source of Quality Health Information on Varicoceles. Urology. 2023;175:170–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Juliebø-Jones P, Emiliani E, Sierra A, Esperto F, Ventimiglia E, Pietropaolo A, et al. Patient perspectives on kidney stone surgery: a content analysis of instagram posts by patients versus surgeons. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2023;58:82–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Schulz AE, Babar M, Bernstein AP, Loloi J, Raup V. Vasectomy and Vasectomy Reversals—a Review of the Current Literature. Current Sexual Health Rep. 2023;15:138–147.

  20. Sharlip ID. What is the best pregnancy rate that may be expected from vasectomy reversal? J Urol. 1993;149:1469–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mosquera LF, Urban J. Laparoscopic vasectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1994;4:461–2.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tandon S, Sabanegh E Jr. Chronic pain after vasectomy: a diagnostic and treatment dilemma. BJU Int. 2008;102:166–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Commun Health. 1999;53:105–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Sismanogleio Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece

    Lazaros Tzelves

  2. Department of Urology and Andrology, Astana Medical University, Astana, Kazakhstan

    Ali Talyshinskii

  3. Department of Urology, University Hospital Southampton, Southampton, UK

    Carlotta Nedbal

  4. Department of Urology Faculty of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Ioannis Mykoniatis

  5. Department of Urology Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway

    Christian Beisland, Ingunn Roth & Patrick Juliebø-Jones

  6. Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

    Christian Beisland & Patrick Juliebø-Jones

  7. Department of Urology, Erebouni Medical Center, Yerevan, Armenia

    Arman Tsaturyan

  8. Department of Urology, AZ Klina, Brasschaat, Belgium

    Vincent de Coninck

  9. Department of Urology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Etienne Xavier Keller

  10. Department of Urology University Hospital Southampton, Southampton, UK

    Bhaskar K. Somani

Authors
  1. Lazaros Tzelves
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ali Talyshinskii
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carlotta Nedbal
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ioannis Mykoniatis
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Christian Beisland
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ingunn Roth
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Arman Tsaturyan
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Vincent de Coninck
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Etienne Xavier Keller
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Bhaskar K. Somani
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Patrick Juliebø-Jones
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Lazaros Tzelves: Conception, design, methodology, dasta collection, analysis, data interpretation, drafting of manuscript and revision of final manuscript Ali Talyshinskii: methodology, data collection, revision of final manuscript Carlotta Nedbal: methodology, data interpretation, revision of final manuscript Ioannis Mykoniatis. methodology, data interpretation revision of final manuscript Christian Beisland: methodology, data interpretation, revision of final manuscript Ingunn Roth: methodology, data interpretation, revision of final manuscript Arman Tsaturyan: methodology, data interpretation, revision of final manuscript Vincent de Coninck: methodology, data interpretation, revision of final manuscript Etienne Xavier Keller: methodology, data interpretation, revision of final manuscript Bhaskar K Somani: Conception, design, methodology, analysis, revision of final manuscript Patrick Juliebø-Jones: Conception, design, supervision, analysis, drafting of manuscript and revision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrick Juliebø-Jones.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

All data was freely and publicly available as well as anonymized at source. Therefore no ethical approval was deemed necessary.

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

Tzelves, L., Talyshinskii, A., Nedbal, C. et al. Patient perspectives on vasectomy: findings from a TikTok® content analysis. Int J Impot Res (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-024-00931-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-024-00931-5

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links