The quality, reliability and educational values of YouTube videos for low vision patients.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 OPHTHALMOLOGY Clinical and Experimental Optometry Pub Date : 2024-12-05 DOI:10.1080/08164622.2024.2435514
Luis Pérez-Mañá, Bernat Sunyer-Grau, Abina Dhital, Marc Argilés
{"title":"The quality, reliability and educational values of YouTube videos for low vision patients.","authors":"Luis Pérez-Mañá, Bernat Sunyer-Grau, Abina Dhital, Marc Argilés","doi":"10.1080/08164622.2024.2435514","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>Access to high-quality educational resources is essential for patients with low vision. Providing curated recommendations for reliable materials can help ensure patients receive accurate information for effective visual health management.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Visual impairment is a global issue affecting millions. The internet serves as a significant source of information, but the quality and reliability of this information can vary greatly.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An online search on YouTube was conducted using keywords such as 'Low Vision', 'Vision Impairment', 'Low Vision Aids', and 'Low Vision Rehabilitation'. Videos were screened based on inclusion criteria, and those that did not meet these criteria were excluded. The selected videos were assessed using three evaluation tools: modified DISCERN criteria (mDISCERN), JAMA benchmark criteria, and Global Quality Score (GQS). Three low-vision optometrists independently performed the assessments, and video popularity was measured using the video power index (VPI).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 116 videos were included in the analysis. The Kruskal-Wallis test indicated significant differences between the results of the three video evaluation tools and video quality (<i>p</i> < .001). The comparison between videos produced by universities vs. professional organisations vs. private companies showed no significant differences between groups and VPI (<i>p</i> = .522), but a significant difference was found with mDISCERN (<i>p</i> < .001), JAMA (<i>p</i> < .001), and GQS (<i>p</i> = .014). No significant differences in quality were found in gender analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>YouTube can be a valuable source of information for low vision patients, but healthcare providers need to guide patients towards high-quality resources while ensuring oversight of the content.</p>","PeriodicalId":10214,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Experimental Optometry","volume":" ","pages":"1-6"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Experimental Optometry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08164622.2024.2435514","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

Clinical relevance: Access to high-quality educational resources is essential for patients with low vision. Providing curated recommendations for reliable materials can help ensure patients receive accurate information for effective visual health management.

Background: Visual impairment is a global issue affecting millions. The internet serves as a significant source of information, but the quality and reliability of this information can vary greatly.

Methods: An online search on YouTube was conducted using keywords such as 'Low Vision', 'Vision Impairment', 'Low Vision Aids', and 'Low Vision Rehabilitation'. Videos were screened based on inclusion criteria, and those that did not meet these criteria were excluded. The selected videos were assessed using three evaluation tools: modified DISCERN criteria (mDISCERN), JAMA benchmark criteria, and Global Quality Score (GQS). Three low-vision optometrists independently performed the assessments, and video popularity was measured using the video power index (VPI).

Results: A total of 116 videos were included in the analysis. The Kruskal-Wallis test indicated significant differences between the results of the three video evaluation tools and video quality (p < .001). The comparison between videos produced by universities vs. professional organisations vs. private companies showed no significant differences between groups and VPI (p = .522), but a significant difference was found with mDISCERN (p < .001), JAMA (p < .001), and GQS (p = .014). No significant differences in quality were found in gender analysis.

Conclusions: YouTube can be a valuable source of information for low vision patients, but healthcare providers need to guide patients towards high-quality resources while ensuring oversight of the content.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
5.30%
发文量
132
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical and Experimental Optometry is a peer reviewed journal listed by ISI and abstracted by PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Science Citation Index and Current Contents. It publishes original research papers and reviews in clinical optometry and vision science. Debate and discussion of controversial scientific and clinical issues is encouraged and letters to the Editor and short communications expressing points of view on matters within the Journal''s areas of interest are welcome. The Journal is published six times annually.
期刊最新文献
Optic nerve assessment with stereo photographs and ultra-widefield scanning laser ophthalmoscope images. Iris changes and pupillometry in Nevus of Ota. Effect of endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy on conjunctival morphology and visual quality. Current and emerging strategies for the manufacture, implantation, and clinical management of corneal tissue allografts. The quality, reliability and educational values of YouTube videos for low vision patients.
×
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