Evaluating the quality and reliability of YouTube videos on myopia: a video content analysis.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 OPHTHALMOLOGY International Ophthalmology Pub Date : 2024-07-18 DOI:10.1007/s10792-024-03250-2
Mustafa Kayabaşı, Seher Köksaldı, Ceren Durmaz Engin
{"title":"Evaluating the quality and reliability of YouTube videos on myopia: a video content analysis.","authors":"Mustafa Kayabaşı, Seher Köksaldı, Ceren Durmaz Engin","doi":"10.1007/s10792-024-03250-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the quality and reliability of YouTube videos as an educational resource about myopia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The videos were identified by searching YouTube with the keywords 'myopia' and 'nearsightedness', using the website's default search settings. The number of views, likes, dislikes, view ratio, source of the upload, country of origin, video type, and described treatment techniques were assessed. Each video was evaluated using the DISCERN, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP), Health On the Net Code of Conduct Certification (HONcode), and the Global Quality Score (GQS) scales.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 112 videos were included. The classification of videos by source indicated that the top three contributors were health channels (30 videos [26.8%]), physicians (24 videos [21.4%]), and academic centers (19 videos [16.9%]). Most of these videos originated from the United States (74 videos [66.1%]) and focused on the pathophysiology (n = 89, 79.4%) and the treatment (n = 77, 68.7%) of myopia. Statistical comparisons among the groups of video sources showed no significant difference in the mean DISCERN score (p = 0.102). However, significant differences were noted in the JAMA (p = 0.011), GQS (p = 0.009), HONcode (p = 0.011), and EQIP (p = 0.002) scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study underscored the variability in the quality and reliability of YouTube videos related to myopia, with most content ranging from 'weak to moderate' quality based on the DISCERN and GQS scales, yet appearing to be 'excellent' according to the HONcode and EQIP scales. Videos uploaded by physicians generally exhibited higher standards, highlighting the importance of expert involvement in online health information dissemination. Given the potential risks of accessing incorrect medical data that can affect the decision-making processes of patients, caution should be exercised when using online content as a source of information.</p>","PeriodicalId":14473,"journal":{"name":"International Ophthalmology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-024-03250-2","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the quality and reliability of YouTube videos as an educational resource about myopia.

Methods: The videos were identified by searching YouTube with the keywords 'myopia' and 'nearsightedness', using the website's default search settings. The number of views, likes, dislikes, view ratio, source of the upload, country of origin, video type, and described treatment techniques were assessed. Each video was evaluated using the DISCERN, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP), Health On the Net Code of Conduct Certification (HONcode), and the Global Quality Score (GQS) scales.

Results: A total of 112 videos were included. The classification of videos by source indicated that the top three contributors were health channels (30 videos [26.8%]), physicians (24 videos [21.4%]), and academic centers (19 videos [16.9%]). Most of these videos originated from the United States (74 videos [66.1%]) and focused on the pathophysiology (n = 89, 79.4%) and the treatment (n = 77, 68.7%) of myopia. Statistical comparisons among the groups of video sources showed no significant difference in the mean DISCERN score (p = 0.102). However, significant differences were noted in the JAMA (p = 0.011), GQS (p = 0.009), HONcode (p = 0.011), and EQIP (p = 0.002) scores.

Conclusions: This study underscored the variability in the quality and reliability of YouTube videos related to myopia, with most content ranging from 'weak to moderate' quality based on the DISCERN and GQS scales, yet appearing to be 'excellent' according to the HONcode and EQIP scales. Videos uploaded by physicians generally exhibited higher standards, highlighting the importance of expert involvement in online health information dissemination. Given the potential risks of accessing incorrect medical data that can affect the decision-making processes of patients, caution should be exercised when using online content as a source of information.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估 YouTube 近视视频的质量和可靠性:视频内容分析。
目的:评估 YouTube 视频作为近视教育资源的质量和可靠性:使用网站的默认搜索设置,以 "近视 "和 "近视 "为关键词在 YouTube 上搜索视频。对视频的观看次数、喜欢、不喜欢、观看比例、上传来源、来源国、视频类型和描述的治疗技术进行了评估。使用 DISCERN、《美国医学会杂志》(JAMA)、《确保患者信息质量》(EQIP)、《网络健康行为准则认证》(HONcode)和《全球质量评分》(GQS)量表对每个视频进行评估:结果:共收录了 112 部视频。按视频来源分类显示,前三位贡献者分别是健康频道(30 个视频 [26.8%])、医生(24 个视频 [21.4%])和学术中心(19 个视频 [16.9%])。这些视频大多来自美国(74 个视频 [66.1%]),主要集中在近视的病理生理学(89 个,79.4%)和治疗(77 个,68.7%)方面。各组视频资源之间的统计比较显示,DISCERN 的平均得分没有显著差异(P = 0.102)。然而,在 JAMA (p = 0.011)、GQS (p = 0.009)、HONcode (p = 0.011) 和 EQIP (p = 0.002) 分数上存在明显差异:根据 DISCERN 和 GQS 量表,大多数内容的质量为 "弱到中等",但根据 HONcode 和 EQIP 量表,大多数内容的质量似乎为 "优秀"。由医生上传的视频一般都达到了较高的标准,这凸显了专家参与在线健康信息传播的重要性。鉴于获取错误医疗数据的潜在风险会影响患者的决策过程,因此在使用在线内容作为信息来源时应谨慎行事。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
451
期刊介绍: International Ophthalmology provides the clinician with articles on all the relevant subspecialties of ophthalmology, with a broad international scope. The emphasis is on presentation of the latest clinical research in the field. In addition, the journal includes regular sections devoted to new developments in technologies, products, and techniques.
期刊最新文献
Retinal vasculature changes in patients with internal carotid artery stenosis. Performance of Chatgpt in ophthalmology exam; human versus AI. Unveiling macular displacement: endotamponade variations in retinal detachment repair outcomes. A small disc size, a big challenge: effect of optic disc size on the correlation between peripapillary choroidal thickness, peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer, and ganglion cell layer. Clinical profile and etiological spectrum of patients presenting with corneal hydrops over a 12-year period.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1