A systematic evaluation of youtube as an information source for male infertility.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ku S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8445813 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
A systematic evaluation of youtube as an information source for male infertility.
Ku Seul S Balasubramanian Adithya A Yu Justin J Srivatsav Ashwin A Gondokusumo Jabez J Tatem Alexander J AJ Beilan Jonathan A JA Hasan Asad A Hotaling James M JM Lipshultz Larry I LI Pastuszak Alexander W AW
International journal of impotence research 20200615 6
This study evaluates YouTube videos (YTVs) focused on male infertility to assess information quality and identify high-quality content that can reliably facilitate care. Top 50 YTVs based on relevance were identified using the keyword "male infertility." A checklist, adapted from American Urological Association guidelines addressing male infertility, was developed to assess YTV content. Two investigators extracted YTV features (including duration, likes, views, upload date), classified creators ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundYouTube is a valuable source of health-related educational material which can have a profound impact on people's behaviors and decisions. However, YouTube contains a wide variety of unverified content that may promote unhealthy behaviors and activities. We aim in this systematic review to provide insight into the published literature concerning the quality of health information and educational videos found on YouTube.MethodsWe searched Google Scholar, Medline (through PubMed), EMBASE, Scopus, Direct Science, Web of Science, and ProQuest databases to find all papers on the analysis of medical and health-related content published in English up to August 2020. Based on eligibility criteria, 202 papers were included in our study. We reviewed every article and extracted relevant data such as the number of videos and assessors, the number and type of quality categories, and the recommendations made by the authors. The extracted data from the papers were aggregated using different methods to compile the results.ResultsThe total number of videos assessed in the selected articles is 22,300 (median = 94, interquartile range = 50.5-133). The videos were evaluated by one or multiple assessors (median = 2, interquartile range = 1-3). The video quality was assessed by scoring, categorization, or based on creators' bias. Researchers commonly employed scoring systems that are either standardized (e.g., GQS, DISCERN, and JAMA) or based upon the guidelines and recommendations of professional associations. Results from the aggregation of scoring or categorization data indicate that health-related content on YouTube is of average to below-average quality. The compiled results from bias-based classification show that only 32% of the videos appear neutral toward the health content. Furthermore, the majority of the studies confirmed either negative or no correlation between the quality and popularity of the assessed videos.ConclusionsYouTube is not a reliable source of medical and health-related information. YouTube's popularity-driven metrics such as the number of views and likes should not be considered quality indicators. YouTube should improve its ranking and recommender system to promote higher-quality content. One way is to consider expert reviews of medical and health-related videos and to include their assessment data in the ranking algorithm.
| S-EPMC9117585 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo understand the quality of informational Graves' disease (GD) videos on YouTube for treatment decision-making quality and inclusion of American Thyroid Association (ATA) treatment guidelines.Study designCross-sectional cohort.SettingInformational YouTube videos with subject matter "Graves' Disease treatment."MethodThe top 50 videos based on our query were assessed using the DISCERN instrument. This validated algorithm discretely rates treatment-related information from excellent (≥4.5) to very poor (<1.9). Videos were also screened for ATA guideline inclusion. Descriptive statistics were used for cohort characterization. Univariate and multivariate linear regressions characterized factors associated with DISCERN scores. Significance was set at P < .05.ResultsThe videos featured 57,513.43 views (SD = 162,579.25), 1054.70 likes (SD = 2329.77), and 168.80 comments (SD = 292.97). Most were patient education (52%) or patient experience (24%). A minority (40%) were made by thyroid specialists (endocrinologists, endocrine surgeons, or otolaryngologists). Under half did not mention all 3 treatment modalities (44%), and 54% did not mention any ATA recommendations. Overall, videos displayed poor reliability (mean = 2.26, SD = 0.67), treatment information quality (mean = 2.29, SD = 0.75), and overall video quality (mean = 2.47, SD = 1.07). Physician videos were associated with lower likes, views, and comments (P < .001) but higher DISCERN reliability (P = .015) and overall score (P = .019). Longer videos (P = .015), patient accounts (P = .013), and patient experience (P = .002) were associated with lower scores.ConclusionThe most available GD treatment content on YouTube varies significantly in the quality of medical information. This may contribute to suboptimal disease understanding, especially for patients highly engaged with online health information sources.
| S-EPMC10949313 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Candida auris is a novel Candida species, and has emerged globally as a multidrug-resistant health care-associated fungal pathogen. YouTube™ (http://www.youtube.com) as the largest free video-sharing website is increasingly used to search health information. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the content, reliability and quality of YouTube™ videos regarding Candida auris infection, and to identify whether it is a useful resource for people. METHODS:The YouTube™ was used to search systematically for videos using the keywords: "Candida auris infection" and "Candida auris". Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to select the videos. The videos were reviewed and scored by two independent reviewers and recorded the "title", "length", "views", "comments", "dislike", "like", "posted days" and "category of videos". The videos were categorized as "poor", "good" and "excellent" by the score. The DISCERN tool was used to assess the reliability of the YouTube™ videos. RESULTS:Seventy-six videos were included in final analysis in our study. Most videos (59.2%, 55/76) had better quality. There were no statistically significant differences between groups in respect of the number of likes, dislikes, views, comments, percentage positivity, likebility, view rate and viewers' interaction. Length and posted days were significantly associated with the classification. The videos were categorized as "educational video", "new report", "personal experience and blog entertainment" and "interview". Significant differences were found in the source of videos and the characteristics of the individuals appearing in a video between the groups. CONCLUSION:YouTube™ has striking potential to be an effective user-friendly learning interface for people to obtain information of Candida auris infection.
| S-EPMC7268238 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe internet is a common source of health information for patients and caregivers. To date, content and information quality of YouTube videos on sarcoidosis has not been studied. The aim of our study was to investigate the content and quality of information on sarcoidosis provided by YouTube videos.MethodsOf the first 200 results under the search term "sarcoidosis," all English-language videos with content directed at patients were included. Two independent investigators assessed the content of the videos based on 25 predefined key features (content score with 0-25 points), as well as reliability and quality (HONCode score with 0-8 points, DISCERN score with 1-5 points). Misinformation contained in the videos was described qualitatively.ResultsThe majority of the 85 included videos were from an academic or governmental source (n = 63, 74%), and median time since upload was 33 months (IQR 10-55). Median video duration was 8 min (IQR 3-13) and had a median of 2,044 views (IQR 504 - 13,203). Quality assessment suggested partially sufficient information: mean HONCode score was 4.4 (SD 0.9) with 91% of videos having a medium quality HONCode evaluation. Mean DISCERN score was 2.3 (SD 0.5). Video content was generally poor with a mean of 10.5 points (SD 0.6). Frequently absent key features included information on the course of disease (6%), presence of substantial geographical variation (7%), and importance of screening for extrapulmonary manifestations (11%). HONCode scores were higher in videos from academic or governmental sources (p = 0.003), particularly regarding "transparency of sponsorship" (p < 0.001). DISCERN and content scores did not differ by video category.ConclusionsMost YouTube videos present incomplete information reflected in a poor content score, especially regarding screening for extrapulmonary manifestations. Quality was partially sufficient with higher scores in videos from academic or governmental sources, but often missing references and citing specific evidence. Improving patient access to trustworthy and up to date information is needed.
| S-EPMC11386059 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundYouTube™ ( http://www.youtube.com ), as a very popular video site around the world, is increasingly being used for health information. The objectives of this review were to assess the overall usefulness of information on food poisoning presented on YouTube™ for patients.MethodsThe YouTube™ website was systematically searched using the key words "food poisoning", "foodborne diseases" and "foodborne illness". One hundred and sixty videos meet the inclusion criteria. Two independent reviewers scored the videos utilizing a customized usefulness scoring scheme separately and assessed the video duration, views, days since upload, likes, and dislikes. The videos were categorized as education, entertainment, News & Politics and People & Blogs. A usefulness score was devised to assess video quality and to categorize the videos into "slightly useful", "useful", and "very useful".ResultsMost videos were educational 66 (41.3%). Educational videos had significantly higher scores, but had no significant differences in likes, views or views/day. Over half of the videos (97/160) were categorized as "useful". The mean posted days (885.2 ± 756.1 vs 1338.0 ± 887.0, P = 0.043) and the mean duration of video (12.8 ± 13.9 vs 3.5 ± 3.4, P < 0.001) were both significantly different in the very useful group compared with the slightly useful group. There was no correlation between usefulness and the number of likes, the number of dislikes, the number of views, or views/day.ConclusionYouTube™ is a promising source of information regarding food poisoning. Educational videos are of highest usefulness. Considering that there is a lot of low-credibility information, consumers need to be guided to reliable videos in the field of healthcare information.
| S-EPMC6636170 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe current West Africa epidemic of Ebola virus disease (EVD), which began from Guinea in December 2013, has been the longest and deadliest Ebola outbreak to date. With the propagation of the internet, public health officials must now compete with other official and unofficial sources of information to get their message out.AimsThis study aimed at critically appraising videos available on one popular internet video site (YouTube) as a source of information for Ebola virus disease (EVD).Materials and methodsVideos were searched in YouTube (http://www.youtube.com) using the keyword "Ebola outbreak" from inception to November 1, 2014 with the default "relevance" filter. Only videos in English language under 10 min duration within first 10 pages of search were included. Duplicates were removed and the rest were classified as useful or misleading by two independent reviewers. Video sources were categorized by source. Inter-observer agreement was evaluated with kappa coefficient. Continuous and categorical variables were analyzed using the Student t-test and Chi-squared test, respectively.ResultsOne hundred and eighteen out of 198 videos were evaluated. Thirty-one (26.27%) videos were classified as misleading and 87 (73.73%) videos were classified as useful. The kappa coefficient of agreement regarding the usefulness of the videos was 0.68 (P < 0.001). Independent users were more likely to post misleading videos (93.55% vs 29.89%, OR = 34.02, 95% CI = 7.55-153.12, P < 0.001) whereas news agencies were most likely to post useful videos (65.52% vs 3.23%, OR = 57.00, 95% CI = 7.40-438.74, P < 0.001).ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that majority of the internet videos about Ebola on YouTube were characterized as useful. Although YouTube seems to generally be a useful source of information on the current outbreak, increased efforts to disseminate scientifically correct information is desired to prevent unnecessary panic among the among the general population.
| S-EPMC4525388 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) carries a higher risk of adverse events than standard endoscopy. Internet media platforms such as YouTube has emerged as a medical information source. Therefore, study aimed to identify whether YouTube videos provide appropriate information on ERCP to the general population. The YouTube search was performed using the terms "endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography" and "ERCP". The top 50 results of both searches, sorted by relevance and view count, were collected. After filtering according to a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 26 videos were eligible for the final analysis. For quality assessment, we created a scoring system called ERCP Data Quality score (E-DQS), based on a colonoscopy education video available on the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy website. Healthcare professionals uploaded 14 (53.8%) videos, and 10 (38.6%) uploaded by medical websites. Only one video was uploaded by a layperson and one by a TV channel. The overall median E-DQS score for enrolled videos was 6.5 out of 20. The majority of videos did not describe the unique features of ERCP. Only 50% of videos informed viewers that patients would be irradiated and only six videos described at least one adverse event related to ERCP. ERCP videos on YouTube provide inadequate information regarding ERCP. Considering the unique characteristics of this procedure, professionals and academic societies need to be vigilant and proactive in producing and promoting high-quality videos.
| S-EPMC9509111 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the quality of YouTube videos on ureteric stent placement (USP) as a source of patient available.MethodsYouTube was searched using search terms "DJ stenting," "Double J stenting," and "ureteric stenting." The initial 100 videos displayed with each of the above mentioned search terms were scrutinized. The selected videos reviewed by 3 independent consultant urologists against a pre-agreed scoring system based upon European Association of Urology (EAU) patient information sheet on ureteric stent placement. The videos were scored qualitatively and quantitatively based on the scores achieved in various domains of the scoring Performa. Data was also collected for the number of views, likes, dislikes, and time duration of each video.ResultsA total of 22 videos which fulfilled the inclusion criteria were reviewed. All the videos were uploaded by healthcare organizations or healthcare websites. None of the videos were classified as "Good" based on reviewer scores and only one video was classified as "acceptable." Fourteen videos were classified as "very poor" with a score of <5/20. General information about stents was described by majority of the studies whilst preoperative information, procedure description, danger signs, and follow up were scarcely described by most videos.ConclusionMajority of YouTube videos on USP are of poor overall quality and lack pertinent information. This calls for creation of comprehensive and unbiased videos for patient information on USP.
| S-EPMC8843829 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo evaluate the content and quality of YouTube videos concerning patellar dislocations.Methods"Patellar dislocation" and "kneecap dislocation" were searched on the YouTube library. The Uniform Resource Locator of the first 25 suggested videos was extracted, for a total of 50 videos. The following variables were collected for each video: number of views, duration in minutes, video source/uploader, content type, days since upload, view ratio (views/day), and number of likes. Video source/uploader was categorized as academic, physician, nonphysician, medical source, patient, commercial, and other. The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Global Quality Scale (GQS), Patellar Dislocation Specific Score (PDSS), and DISCERN scores were used to assess each video. A series of linear regression models were used to explore relationships between each of these scores and the aforementioned variables.ResultsThe median video length was 4.11 minutes (interquartile range 2.07-6.03, range 0.31-53.56), and the total number of views for all 50 videos was 3,697,587 views. The mean overall JAMA benchmark score ± standard deviation was 2.56 ± 0.64, GQS: 3.54 ± 1.05, total PDSS: 5.76 ± 3.42. Physicians were the most common video source/uploader (42%). Academic sources had the greatest mean JAMA benchmark score (3.20), whereas nonphysician and physician sources had the greatest mean GQS scores (4.09 and 3.95, respectively). Videos uploaded by physicians had the greatest PDSS scores (7.5).ConclusionsThe overall transparency, reliability, and content quality of YouTube videos on patellar dislocation measured by the JAMA benchmark score and PDSS, respectively, are poor. Additionally, the overall educational and video quality, as assessed by the GQS, was intermediate.Clinical relevanceIt is important to understand the quality of information patients receive on YouTube so providers can guide patients to greater-quality sources.
| S-EPMC10123404 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundYouTube™ ( http://www.youtube.com ), the most widely used video website worldwide, is becoming a competitive platform for patients to gain health information and knowledge. This study aims to evaluate if YouTube™ is a useful source of information on home parenteral nutrition (HPN) for the public.MethodsAccording to MeSH (Medical Subject Headings), the combinations of search terms related to parenteral (intravenous) and nutrition (feeding) were searched through YouTube™. In total 131 videos were evaluated, which were cataloged into three categories Education, News & Politics, and People & Blogs. Then a usefulness score was devised to assess video quality and to classify all videos into Slightly useful, Useful, and Very useful.ResultsThe majority of videos included are under the Education category (n = 92, 70.23%). 6 videos were identified as Very useful, which were all under the Education category, 27 videos were identified as Useful, while the rest 98 videos were identified as Slightly useful. The number of likes, the number of views, views per day, and the duration of the Very useful videos are significantly higher than those of Slightly useful videos.ConclusionYouTube™ is a good source of information on home parenteral nutrition. In this study, videos categorized under Education were rated as the highest in usefulness. Due to the highly technical content of HPN, and the existence of a lot of low-credibility information on the internet, patients and professional staff are supposed to view other reliable videos in the field of healthcare information.
| S-EPMC11837660 | biostudies-literature