{"title":"Does the content quality of YouTube videos about aligners differ from the perspectives of dentists and orthodontists?","authors":"S. Sadry, S. E. Meseli, Ece Buyukbasaran","doi":"10.25259/apos_14_2023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n\nThis study aimed to content quality analysis of YouTube videos about aligners in orthodontics by a dentist and by an orthodontist.\n\n\n\nConsidering the Google Trends analysis, the “aligner,” as the most searched keyword about aligners in orthodontics, was chosen for YouTube searching. A total of 39 included videos were watched for one time by a dentist and orthodontist. Time since upload, video duration, number of views, number of likes, number of dislikes, and number of comments were recorded. Moreover, the interaction index and viewing rate were calculated and the reliability score, video content quality (VCQ), video interaction and quality index (VIQI), and global quality scales (GQS) were recorded by both viewers. Interobserver agreement levels were interpreted with the Concordance Correlation Coefficient (CCC) and data were evaluated at P < 0.05 as the statistically significant level.\n\n\n\nThe results showed that most of the included videos (48.71%) were uploaded by dental companies. However, the averages of VCQ in terms of uploaders were similar for both viewers. The agreement level in all videos between orthodontist and dentist was “good” level at VIQI (CCC = 0.965) and GQS (CCC = 0.943), whereas it was “very poor” level on VCQ (CCC = 0.653).\n\n\n\nThe findings revealed that YouTube video contents about aligners provide moderate information and VCQ, independently from viewers, is similar among uploaders. The agreement levels between dentist and orthodontist on the evaluation of audiovisual quality of the videos were good, whereas this level was poor on the evaluation of information quality of videos.\n","PeriodicalId":42593,"journal":{"name":"APOS Trends in Orthodontics","volume":"93 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"APOS Trends in Orthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25259/apos_14_2023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This study aimed to content quality analysis of YouTube videos about aligners in orthodontics by a dentist and by an orthodontist.
Considering the Google Trends analysis, the “aligner,” as the most searched keyword about aligners in orthodontics, was chosen for YouTube searching. A total of 39 included videos were watched for one time by a dentist and orthodontist. Time since upload, video duration, number of views, number of likes, number of dislikes, and number of comments were recorded. Moreover, the interaction index and viewing rate were calculated and the reliability score, video content quality (VCQ), video interaction and quality index (VIQI), and global quality scales (GQS) were recorded by both viewers. Interobserver agreement levels were interpreted with the Concordance Correlation Coefficient (CCC) and data were evaluated at P < 0.05 as the statistically significant level.
The results showed that most of the included videos (48.71%) were uploaded by dental companies. However, the averages of VCQ in terms of uploaders were similar for both viewers. The agreement level in all videos between orthodontist and dentist was “good” level at VIQI (CCC = 0.965) and GQS (CCC = 0.943), whereas it was “very poor” level on VCQ (CCC = 0.653).
The findings revealed that YouTube video contents about aligners provide moderate information and VCQ, independently from viewers, is similar among uploaders. The agreement levels between dentist and orthodontist on the evaluation of audiovisual quality of the videos were good, whereas this level was poor on the evaluation of information quality of videos.