FrankTalk.org

I tried to post a link, but it breaks in the middle. It will be necessary to copy the address line below and paste into your browser.

http://www.jsm.jsexmed.org/article/S1743-6095(19)31782-5/abstract

Or do a web search for the title, "A Thematic Analysis of the Online Discussion Board, FrankTalk, Regarding Penile Implant"

or, try this link (I just now learned the utility of bracketing an address with punctuation breaks int the "URL" designators.)

http://www.jsm.jsexmed.org/article/S1743-6095(19)31782-5/abstract


I found a Medical journal studying FrankTalk posts.

I am posting this in "General Discussion" because, well, it is pretty general interest that FrankTalk is so well-known. Kind of a compliment to the forum. Thank you, Paul.

I am posting this in "Implants" because the medical journal made the study of posts in that sub-forum, so the relevancy there is high.

Interesting read.

Thanks for the link.

Somewhat interesting but it's extremely limited by the format, being an abstract. Additionally, it seems unusually abbreviated even for an abstract. I'm not paying the $35 for the full report.

Abstract: A Thematic Analysis of the Online Discussion Board, FrankTalk, Regarding Penile Implant, Jennifer Y. Lu, BA, Eric J. Miller, MHS, Charles Welliver, MD wrote:Strength & Limitations
Strengths include the use of a common online website for men to discuss IPPs and a systematic coding system. Limitations include the applicability of these results to nonheterosexual men as these are likely oversampled in this population. The inherent bias of those willing to post on an online forum may have influenced results along with no oversight for factual accuracy.

This section was a bit interesting. Some is obvious on the face. The sentence in bold (Bold face added) was both interesting and confusing. It has been a concern of mine that at times some posts take on an unnecessary and blatant if not flamboyant or aggressive homosexual tone that adds little if any value to the forum. I have been concerned that the prevalence of such posts, throughout the forum, would deter participation by a fair number of strictly heterosexual men. That is still my belief. At first read I took the bolded sentence to support my belief. However, as written, the sentence appears to possibly support the opposite. Or, is it just a poorly written sentence or perhaps a poorly condensed sentence which was condensed for the abstract. Hmmm.

bldoink wrote:Thanks for the link.
(edited for brevity)
That is still my belief. At first read I took the bolded sentence to support my belief. However, as written, the sentence appears to possibly support the opposite. Or, is it just a poorly written sentence or perhaps a poorly condensed sentence which was condensed for the abstract. Hmmm.

You are welcome.

I felt similarly when I first read that sentence, but upon reflection and with what little I know about statistical analysis of anecdotal data and the "sampling bias" that is inevitable with a survey like this (opposite of the statistical "gold standard" methods that ensure randomness in the sampling), I agree with your later conclusion. It is simply recognizing that some populations of men are more likely to be present on or post personal information on any web site or support group that relates to sex or other highly personal subjects.

That is, the population on FrankTalk is likely to self-select and thus present a bias. The writer of that sentence supposes that homosexual and bisexual men would be more candid here. He may or may not have statistical data to support that theory, but I do not see where he presents it.

This is a first for us! I had heard someone was doing some sort of analysis of posts on franktalk. They did not contact me (at least not that I can remember) but since it is a public forum, they would not ethically have to.
If someone really wants to read the whole article, I am a member of SMSNA and ISSM and have access to the full article.
Looking at Franktalk Implant forum only:
Their proposition was: "we can better understand patient concerns before and after IPP."
Their finding was no surprise to most of us: "Providers should be aware of these online topic focuses to help open a discussion with patients about concerns they may feel are difficult to approach with providers." In other words, doctors need to be aware that everything a patient is worried about may not be mentioned to the surgeon and FT is a good place for doctors to learn this.

Interesting data: 304 posts were considered pre-operative and of these, the most common open code was concern over loss of size (70 posts, 23.0%) with the next most common code being “seeking support” (56 posts, 18.4%). These “seeking support” posts were primarily focused on patients sharing their story, asking for advice (“am I too young for an implant”), or connecting with peers in similar situation (“I have surgery in 5 days and I’m so excited”). Other common preoperative codes included how to prepare for surgery (46 posts, 15.1%), referrals for surgeons (44 posts, 14.5%), and functional questions (43 posts, 14.1%). The axial code “functional questions” encompassed questions about activity limitations (“can I ride a motorcycle with an implant”) and physical postoperative changes (“will I still get an occasional natural erection”).


Thank you, Lost Sheep! I would not have seen this for weeks since it was just published this week in the JSM!
Paul