YouTube 作为隧道式导管插入教育的来源:内容和质量分析。

IF 2.7 2区 医学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH BMC Medical Education Pub Date : 2024-11-15 DOI:10.1186/s12909-024-06330-0
Merve Ergenç, Ruslan Abdullayev
{"title":"YouTube 作为隧道式导管插入教育的来源:内容和质量分析。","authors":"Merve Ergenç, Ruslan Abdullayev","doi":"10.1186/s12909-024-06330-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Tunneled catheters can be inserted for many reasons, and in most centers, and in most centers it is not clear who should insert these catheters. Some anesthesiologists may not have seen first-hand the insertion of a tunneled catheter during their residency, depending on the policies of the institution. YouTube is one of the most commonly used online platforms for accessing medical information. The aim of this study was to investigate the reliability of YouTube videos, for tunneled central venous catheter (Hickman and tunneled hemodialysis catheters) insertion for education.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The keywords \"Tunneled catheter insertion\" and \"Tunneled central venous catheter insertion\" were searched for on YouTube. The first 100 videos ranked by the YouTube algorithm were analysed. Animation and theoretical content videos, as well as videos that included only a part of the catheter insertion, were excluded. The sources of the videos were categorized as medical doctors or professional organizations. medical device advertisement and hospital. Two authors evaluated all videos via the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, modified DISCERN scores and the Global Quality Scale (GQS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-three videos were analysed in the study. The video quality scores were similar across the video sources. The number of views and the number of likes were significantly positively correlated. Furthermore, a significant correlation was found between the JAMA, Modified DISCERN, and GQS scores. Notably, none of the analysed videos achieved full points in all three scoring systems.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Relying on a single criterion, such as the video source or number of likes, is not sufficient to determine a video's quality. Therefore, what is learned from videos needs to be double-checked. These platforms should be used as an additional tool, not as the primary source of education.</p>","PeriodicalId":51234,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Education","volume":"24 1","pages":"1318"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11566733/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"YouTube as a source of education on tunneled catheter insertion: content and quality analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Merve Ergenç, Ruslan Abdullayev\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12909-024-06330-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Tunneled catheters can be inserted for many reasons, and in most centers, and in most centers it is not clear who should insert these catheters. Some anesthesiologists may not have seen first-hand the insertion of a tunneled catheter during their residency, depending on the policies of the institution. YouTube is one of the most commonly used online platforms for accessing medical information. The aim of this study was to investigate the reliability of YouTube videos, for tunneled central venous catheter (Hickman and tunneled hemodialysis catheters) insertion for education.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The keywords \\\"Tunneled catheter insertion\\\" and \\\"Tunneled central venous catheter insertion\\\" were searched for on YouTube. The first 100 videos ranked by the YouTube algorithm were analysed. Animation and theoretical content videos, as well as videos that included only a part of the catheter insertion, were excluded. The sources of the videos were categorized as medical doctors or professional organizations. medical device advertisement and hospital. Two authors evaluated all videos via the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, modified DISCERN scores and the Global Quality Scale (GQS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-three videos were analysed in the study. The video quality scores were similar across the video sources. The number of views and the number of likes were significantly positively correlated. Furthermore, a significant correlation was found between the JAMA, Modified DISCERN, and GQS scores. Notably, none of the analysed videos achieved full points in all three scoring systems.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Relying on a single criterion, such as the video source or number of likes, is not sufficient to determine a video's quality. Therefore, what is learned from videos needs to be double-checked. These platforms should be used as an additional tool, not as the primary source of education.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51234,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Medical Education\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"1318\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11566733/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Medical Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-06330-0\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-06330-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:插入隧道导管的原因有很多,但在大多数中心,由谁来插入这些导管并不明确。有些麻醉医师在实习期间可能没有亲眼见过插入隧道导管,这取决于机构的政策。YouTube 是获取医疗信息最常用的在线平台之一。本研究旨在调查YouTube视频的可靠性,了解隧道式中心静脉导管(希克曼导管和隧道式血液透析导管)插入的教育情况:在 YouTube 上搜索关键词 "隧道式导管插入 "和 "隧道式中心静脉导管插入"。对 YouTube 算法排名前 100 位的视频进行了分析。动画和理论内容视频以及仅包含导管插入部分内容的视频被排除在外。视频来源分为医生或专业组织、医疗器械广告和医院。两位作者通过《美国医学会杂志》(JAMA)基准标准、修改后的 DISCERN 评分和全球质量量表(GQS)对所有视频进行了评估:研究分析了 23 个视频。不同视频来源的视频质量得分相似。观看次数和点赞数呈显著正相关。此外,《美国医学会杂志》、修改后的 DISCERN 和 GQS 分数之间也存在明显的相关性。值得注意的是,所分析的视频中没有一个在三个评分系统中都获得满分:结论:视频来源或点赞数等单一标准不足以确定视频的质量。因此,从视频中学到的东西需要反复检查。这些平台应作为一种辅助工具,而不是教育的主要来源。
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
YouTube as a source of education on tunneled catheter insertion: content and quality analysis.

Background: Tunneled catheters can be inserted for many reasons, and in most centers, and in most centers it is not clear who should insert these catheters. Some anesthesiologists may not have seen first-hand the insertion of a tunneled catheter during their residency, depending on the policies of the institution. YouTube is one of the most commonly used online platforms for accessing medical information. The aim of this study was to investigate the reliability of YouTube videos, for tunneled central venous catheter (Hickman and tunneled hemodialysis catheters) insertion for education.

Methods: The keywords "Tunneled catheter insertion" and "Tunneled central venous catheter insertion" were searched for on YouTube. The first 100 videos ranked by the YouTube algorithm were analysed. Animation and theoretical content videos, as well as videos that included only a part of the catheter insertion, were excluded. The sources of the videos were categorized as medical doctors or professional organizations. medical device advertisement and hospital. Two authors evaluated all videos via the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, modified DISCERN scores and the Global Quality Scale (GQS).

Results: Twenty-three videos were analysed in the study. The video quality scores were similar across the video sources. The number of views and the number of likes were significantly positively correlated. Furthermore, a significant correlation was found between the JAMA, Modified DISCERN, and GQS scores. Notably, none of the analysed videos achieved full points in all three scoring systems.

Conclusions: Relying on a single criterion, such as the video source or number of likes, is not sufficient to determine a video's quality. Therefore, what is learned from videos needs to be double-checked. These platforms should be used as an additional tool, not as the primary source of education.

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
BMC Medical Education
BMC Medical Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
795
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Education is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the training of healthcare professionals, including undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing education. The journal has a special focus on curriculum development, evaluations of performance, assessment of training needs and evidence-based medicine.
期刊最新文献
Medical students' perceptions of a community-engaged learning approach to community health in Ghana: the Students' Community Engagement Programme (SCEP). Medical students' perspectives of reflection for their professional development. Perception of undergraduate medical students and examiners towards grand objective structured clinical examination. Satisfaction and learning experience of students using online learning platforms for medical education. Using the adaptive action method to tackle wicked problems in rural faculty development.
×
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