对 YouTube 上婴儿矫形手术前视频的内容和质量进行横向分析。

IF 0.9 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Special Care in Dentistry Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-15 DOI:10.1111/scd.13041
Osama Khader, Raed Alrubaiaan, Farida Abdunabi, Kabir Syed Gyasudeen, Fatemah Amir Rad, Sabarinath Prasad
{"title":"对 YouTube 上婴儿矫形手术前视频的内容和质量进行横向分析。","authors":"Osama Khader, Raed Alrubaiaan, Farida Abdunabi, Kabir Syed Gyasudeen, Fatemah Amir Rad, Sabarinath Prasad","doi":"10.1111/scd.13041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Caregivers seeking additional information about Presurgical Infant Orthopedics (PSIO) may turn to online sources, but the quality of information on platforms like YouTube is uncertain.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To investigate the content and quality of PSIO videos on YouTube.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>YouTube videos were searched using keywords related to PSIO appliances. Videos that met the eligibility criteria (n = 52) were categorized as care provider or caregiver-based. Engagement metrics were analyzed and quality assessments were performed by two raters using the Global Quality Score (GQS), Video Information and Quality Index (VIQI), and Medical Quality Video Evaluation Tool (MQ-VET).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Inter-rater and intra-rater correlations were high (r ≥0.9; p < 0.01), indicating excellent reliability. Strong correlations were observed between the GQS, VIQI, and MQ-VET scores (r: 0.86-0.91; p < 0.01). Mean GQS (2.7 ± 1.1), VIQI (13.0 ± 4.1), and MQ-VET (42.6 ± 12.4) scores indicated poor to moderate video quality. Most videos (73.1%) were in the care provider category and rated significantly higher (p < 0.05) in quality than the caregiver category for all three indices, but not for video engagement metrics.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>YouTube PSIO videos are not comprehensive and lack quality. Caregivers of infants undertaking PSIO should seek advice from care providers and not rely solely on YouTube videos.</p>","PeriodicalId":47470,"journal":{"name":"Special Care in Dentistry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A cross-sectional analysis of the content and quality of presurgical infant orthopedics videos on YouTube.\",\"authors\":\"Osama Khader, Raed Alrubaiaan, Farida Abdunabi, Kabir Syed Gyasudeen, Fatemah Amir Rad, Sabarinath Prasad\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/scd.13041\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Caregivers seeking additional information about Presurgical Infant Orthopedics (PSIO) may turn to online sources, but the quality of information on platforms like YouTube is uncertain.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To investigate the content and quality of PSIO videos on YouTube.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>YouTube videos were searched using keywords related to PSIO appliances. Videos that met the eligibility criteria (n = 52) were categorized as care provider or caregiver-based. Engagement metrics were analyzed and quality assessments were performed by two raters using the Global Quality Score (GQS), Video Information and Quality Index (VIQI), and Medical Quality Video Evaluation Tool (MQ-VET).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Inter-rater and intra-rater correlations were high (r ≥0.9; p < 0.01), indicating excellent reliability. Strong correlations were observed between the GQS, VIQI, and MQ-VET scores (r: 0.86-0.91; p < 0.01). Mean GQS (2.7 ± 1.1), VIQI (13.0 ± 4.1), and MQ-VET (42.6 ± 12.4) scores indicated poor to moderate video quality. Most videos (73.1%) were in the care provider category and rated significantly higher (p < 0.05) in quality than the caregiver category for all three indices, but not for video engagement metrics.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>YouTube PSIO videos are not comprehensive and lack quality. Caregivers of infants undertaking PSIO should seek advice from care providers and not rely solely on YouTube videos.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47470,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Special Care in Dentistry\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Special Care in Dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/scd.13041\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/15 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Special Care in Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/scd.13041","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:目的:调查 YouTube 上 PSIO 视频的内容和质量:设计:使用与 PSIO 设备相关的关键词搜索 YouTube 视频。符合资格标准的视频(n = 52)被归类为基于护理提供者或护理人员的视频。由两名评分员使用全球质量评分(GQS)、视频信息和质量指数(VIQI)以及医疗质量视频评估工具(MQ-VET)对参与度指标进行分析和质量评估:评分者之间和评分者内部的相关性很高(r ≥0.9;p 结论:YouTube PSIO 视频并不全面:YouTube PSIO 视频不全面,质量不高。进行 PSIO 的婴儿护理者应向护理提供者寻求建议,而不应仅仅依赖 YouTube 视频。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
A cross-sectional analysis of the content and quality of presurgical infant orthopedics videos on YouTube.

Background: Caregivers seeking additional information about Presurgical Infant Orthopedics (PSIO) may turn to online sources, but the quality of information on platforms like YouTube is uncertain.

Aim: To investigate the content and quality of PSIO videos on YouTube.

Design: YouTube videos were searched using keywords related to PSIO appliances. Videos that met the eligibility criteria (n = 52) were categorized as care provider or caregiver-based. Engagement metrics were analyzed and quality assessments were performed by two raters using the Global Quality Score (GQS), Video Information and Quality Index (VIQI), and Medical Quality Video Evaluation Tool (MQ-VET).

Results: Inter-rater and intra-rater correlations were high (r ≥0.9; p < 0.01), indicating excellent reliability. Strong correlations were observed between the GQS, VIQI, and MQ-VET scores (r: 0.86-0.91; p < 0.01). Mean GQS (2.7 ± 1.1), VIQI (13.0 ± 4.1), and MQ-VET (42.6 ± 12.4) scores indicated poor to moderate video quality. Most videos (73.1%) were in the care provider category and rated significantly higher (p < 0.05) in quality than the caregiver category for all three indices, but not for video engagement metrics.

Conclusion: YouTube PSIO videos are not comprehensive and lack quality. Caregivers of infants undertaking PSIO should seek advice from care providers and not rely solely on YouTube videos.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Special Care in Dentistry
Special Care in Dentistry DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
14.30%
发文量
120
期刊介绍: Special Care in Dentistry is the official journal of the Special Care Dentistry Association, the American Association of Hospital Dentists, the Academy of Dentistry for Persons with Disabilities, and the American Society for Geriatric Dentistry. It is the only journal published in North America devoted to improving oral health in people with special needs.
期刊最新文献
Oral complications associated with trigeminal trophic syndrome: A case report. Are orofacial pain assessment tools for adults who cannot self-report pain suitable for dental practice? A scoping review. Dentistry and Sturge-Weber syndrome: Case report and narrative review. Geriatric dentistry course effect against ageism among dental students: A cohort study. Exploring the oral health status of children living with hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy (HIE): A caregiver described self-report.
×
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