Aims To analyze the quality, understandability, and actionability of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) content and to characterize creators of content and treatment options discussed on social media platforms YouTube, Instagram, and Pinterest. Methods A cross‐sectional, qualitative study was conducted for each platform. A search for “pelvic organ prolapse” was conducted and the first 100 relevant results analyzed. Data collected include source characteristics, treatments discussed, and scores for each criterion of validated Patient Education Materials and Assessment Tool and DISCERN metrics to evaluate quality, actionability, and understandability. The χ 2 analysis, univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were done to assess correlations and the impact of variables on outcomes of interest across platforms. Results Low to moderate quality was present in 74.1% of posts. Poor understandability was seen in 37.1% of posts, and 56.1% had poor actionability. The most common publisher of content overall was health and wellness or physical therapy groups (44.6%). The most common YouTube publisher was doctors, hospitals, or clinics (49%). Pelvic floor muscle training was the most discussed treatment overall (57.4%). On YouTube surgery was discussed more frequently than Instagram or Pinterest (58% vs. 11% vs. 43%, p < 0.001. Pinterest posts had better understandability ratings than YouTube videos (odds ratio = 0.19; 95% confidence interval: [0.10–0.36]; p < 0.001). Conclusion Information on popular platforms regarding POP demonstrates inconsistent quality and poor understandability and actionability. There is an opportunity for health care providers to direct patients to curated lists of high‐quality educational content on these platforms. Awareness of information available on social media is an increasingly important aspect of patient care.

The above-reported cases are highly significant because of the severity of catatonic symptoms requiring inpatient hospitalization, the potential for rapid and severe decompensation with catatonia, and the atypical/unexpected development of catatonia with SC use.

Background: Following bariatric surgery, patients develop problems related to lax abdominal skin that may be addressed by contouring procedures. Third-party insurers have subjective requirements for coverage of these procedures that can limit patient access. The authors sought to determine how well third-party payers cover abdominal contouring procedures in this population. Methods: The authors conducted a cross-sectional analysis of insurance policies for coverage of panniculectomy, lower back excision, and circumferential lipectomy. Abdominoplasty was evaluated as an alternative to panniculectomy. Insurance companies were selected based on their market share and state enrolment. A list of medical necessity criteria was abstracted from the policies that offered coverage. Results: Of the 55 companies evaluated, 98 percent had a policy that covered panniculectomy versus 36 percent who would cover lower back excision (p < 0.0001), and one-third provided coverage for circumferential lipectomy. Of the insurers who covered panniculectomy, only 30 percent would also cover abdominoplasty. Documentation of secondary skin conditions was the most prevalent criterion in panniculectomy policies (100 percent), whereas impaired function and secondary skin conditions were most common for coverage of lower back excision (73 percent and 73 percent, respectively). Frequency of criteria for panniculectomy versus lower back excision differed most notably for (1) secondary skin conditions (100 percent versus 73 percent; p = 0.0030), (2) weight loss (45 percent versus 7 percent; p = 0.0106), and (3) duration of weight stability (82 percent versus 53 percent; p = 0.0415). Conclusions: For the postbariatric population, panniculectomy was covered more often and had more standardized criteria than lower back excision or circumferential lipectomy. However, all have vast intracompany and interpolicy variations in coverage criteria that may reduce access to procedures, even among patients with established indications.