Personal protective equipment in Covid-19: Evidence-based quality and analysis of YouTube videos after one year of pandemic

Users' experience with health-related content on YouTube: an exploratory study

BACKGROUND

This study focuses on health-related content (HRC) on YouTube and addresses the issue of misinformation on this platform. While previous research centered on content evaluations by experts, this study takes a user-centered approach and aims to explore users' experiences with and perceptions of HRC videos and to establish links between these perceptions and some socio-demographic characteristics including age, gender, profession, and educational level.

METHODS

A quantitative research design was used in the study. 3,000 YouTube users responded to a 35-item anonymous questionnaire to collect information about the content they watch toward decision-making, their perceptions of the usefulness and bias of this content, what they identify as quality indicators for HRC, and what they recommend to improve the quality of such content on YouTube. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, frequency, and correlation analyses.

RESULTS

The results reveal that 87.6 percent (n=2630) of the participants watch HRC on YouTube, and 84.7 percent (n=2542) make decisions based on what they watch. Exercise and bodybuilding videos are the most popular, with over half of the participants watching them. 40 percent of the users watch YouTube videos to decide whether to consult a doctor or adopt specific health-related practices. In contrast to evaluations by experts in previous studies, most respondents perceive HRC videos on YouTube as useful and do not find connections between video quality and surface features like the number of views and likes. Weak or no correlations were observed between the perceived usefulness of HRC videos and age, gender, profession, or educational level. Participants' recommendations for enhancing HRC quality align with previous research findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Users turn to YouTube not only for health information but also as a decision-making tool. Combined with their generally positive attitudes towards content quality on this platform, this can have significant consequences for their health. Follow-up studies are needed to get more insights into decision-making behaviors and how users assess their decisions in retrospect.

Telemedicine and YouTube™: Video quality analysis before and after COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVE

To assess the quality content of YouTube™ videos on telemedicine during COVID-19 pandemic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

First, the frequency of worldwide YouTube™ and Google™ searches for telemedicine was analyzed. Second, we queried YouTube™ with telemedicine-related terms. Third, the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Audiovisual Materials (PEMAT A/V), the Global Quality Score (GQS), and the Misinformation tool were used for the quality assessment.

RESULTS

According to selection criteria, 129 videos were collected for the analysis. From January 2018 to January 2022, the peak relative interest on YouTube™ and Google™ occurred in March 2020. Of all, 27.1 and 72.9% were uploaded before (Jan 2018-Feb 2020) and after (Mar 2020-Mar 2022) the COVID-19 outbreak, respectively. According to the PEMAT A/V, the overall median understandability and actionability was 50.0% (33.3 [IQR 0-66.7] vs 50.0 [27.1-75], p = 0.2) and 66.7% (63.6 [IQR 50.0-75.7] vs 67.9 [50.0-79.2],p = 0.6), respectively. According to GQS, 3.9%, 17.8%, 24.0%, 26.4% and 27.9% were classified as excellent, good, medium, generally poor, and poor-quality videos, respectively. The highest rate of poor-quality videos was recorded in videos uploaded before COVID-19 pandemic (37.1 vs 24.5%). According to overall misinformation score, a higher score was recorded for the videos uploaded after COVID-19 pandemic (1.8 [IQR 1.4-2.3] vs 2.2 [1.8-2.8], p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The interest in telemedicine showed a significant peak when the COVID-19 pandemic was declared. However, the contents provided on YouTubeTM were not informative enough. In the future, official medical institutions should standardize telemedicine regulation and online content to reduce the widespread of misleading information.

Mental Health of Prostate Cancer Patients: Content Review on YouTubeTM

The aim of this study is to evaluate YouTube™ content in terms of the quality of information available about prostate cancer (PCa) in relation to incidence, symptomatology, and potential treatments for patients' mental health. We searched on YouTube™ for terms related to mental health combined with those relating to prostate cancer. Tools for audio-visual-content PEMAT A/V, Global Quality Score, and DISCERN score were applied for the assessment of videos' quality. A total of 67 videos were eligible. Most of the analyzed YouTube™ videos were created by physicians (52.2%) in contrast to other author categories (48.8%). According to the PEMAT A/V, the median score for Understandability was 72.7% and the overall median score for Actionability was 66.7%; the median DISCERN score was 47, which correspond to a fair quality. Only videos focusing on the topic "Psychological Effects and PCa treatment" were significantly more accurate. The General Quality Score revealed that the majority of YouTube™ videos were rated as "generally poor" (21, 31.3%) or "poor" (12, 17.9%). The results suggest that the content of YouTube™ videos is neither exhaustive nor reliable in the current state, illustrating a general underestimation of the mental health of prostate cancer patients. A multidisciplinary agreement to establish quality standards and improve communication about mental health care is needed.

Social Media Content on Immunology: Is an Assessment by the Scientific Community Required?

In recent years, vaccines and immunotherapy have become two of the most promising and effective tools in the fight against a wide range of diseases, from the common cold to cancer [...].

A cross-sectional study on reliability and quality of YouTube® videos related to hallux valgus and evaluation of newly developed hallux valgus-specific survey tool

Objective

Previous studies have reported low quality and reliability on YouTube videos about various medical issues including videos related to hallux valgus (HV) treatment. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the reliability and quality of YouTube videos on HV and develop a new HV-specific survey tool that physicians, surgeons, and the medical industry can use to create high-quality videos.

Methods

Videos viewed over 10,000 times were included in the study. We used the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, global quality score (GQS), DISCERN tool, and new HV-specific survey criteria (HVSSC) developed by us to evaluate the quality, educational utility and reliability of the videos, the popularity of which was assessed using the Video Power Index (VPI) and view ratio (VR).

Results

Fifty-two videos were included in this study. Fifteen videos (28.8%) were posted by medical companies producing surgical implants and orthopedic products, 20 (38.5%) by nonsurgical physicians, and 16 (30.8%) by surgeons. The HVSSC indicated that the quality, educational value, and reliability of only 5 (9.6%) videos were adequate. Videos posted by physicians and surgeons tended to be more popular (p = 0.047 and 0.043). Although no correlation was detected among the DISCERN, JAMA, and GQS scores, or between the VR and VPI, we found correlations of the HVSSC score with the number of views and the VR (p = 0.374 and p = 0.006, respectively). A good correlation was detected among the DISCERN, GQS, and HVSSC classifications (rho = 0.770, 0.853, and 0.831, respectively, p = 0.001).

Conclusions

The reliability of HV-related videos on YouTube is low for professionals and patients. The HVSSC can be used to evaluate the quality, educational value, and reliability of videos.

Immunotherapy for Urological Tumors on YouTubeTM: An Information-Quality Analysis

BACKGROUND

YouTube^TM is an open-access source for mass information. Several previous studies of YouTube^TM videos showed a high rate of misinformation in the urological field. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the quality of information on immunotherapy (IMT) for urological tumors uploaded to YouTube^TM.

METHODS

YouTube^TM videos were searched using nine keyword combinations. The PEMAT, the DISCERN tool, and the Misinformation scale were used to assess the quality of information in YouTube^TM videos about IMT for urological tumors. Descriptive statistics and Kruskal-Wallis, Chi-square, proportion, and Pearson's tests were performed.

RESULTS

According to the selection criteria, 156 YouTube^TM videos were suitable for the analysis and stratified according to topic (urothelial carcinoma vs. renal cell cancer vs. prostate cancer vs. general information on IMT). According to PEMAT A/V, the overall Understandability score was 40% (Inter-Quartile Range [IQR]: 20-61.5) and the overall Actionability score was 0% (IQR: 0-25). According to the DISCERN tool, the overall DISCERN score was 44 (IQR: 39-53.2), defined as "fair". According to the Misinformation scale, we recorded the lowest median overall score for item 4 ("IMT in multimodality approach") and item 5 ("Future perspective").

CONCLUSIONS

YouTube^TM cannot be recommended as a reliable source of information on IMT for urological malignancies. In addition, YouTube^TM videos contributed to the spread of misinformation by underestimating the role of IMT in a multimodality approach and missing the findings of published clinical trial results.

Perceptions and attitudes toward the use of telemedicine for the postoperative outpatient urological care during the COVID-19 pandemic in an Academic Hospital in Southern Italy

INTRODUCTION

Telemedicine is a most used tools in various medical and surgical scenarios. The aim of the present study was to explore attitudes and perceptions by urologic patients toward the use of telemedicine in the context of patient-physicians communication during the post-operative follow-up in a large academic tertiary urology referral department in Italy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An anonymous questionnaire consisting of 15 multiple choice questions was designed including three sections: respondents' demographics, attitudes, and perceptions towards the use of telemedicine. Invitations to participate to this anonymous questionnaire was given to outpatients attended at Urology Department, University of Naples Federico II.

RESULTS

In total 697 responses were received (participation rate 73%). The frequency of telemedicine use was described as frequently, occasional, rarely, and never by 41.6%, 30.4%, 15.1%, and 12.6% of respondents, respectively. WhatsApp messenger used by 59.5% of respondents and telephone call (34.3%) were the most common type of tools. Satisfaction in using telemedicine was reported as very satisfied, satisfied, neutral, dissatisfied, and very dissatisfied by 39.6%,41.4%,10%,7% and 2% of respondents respectively. Overall, 43.7%% of participants individuated limited interaction and risk of misdiagnosis as the major limit of telemedicine.

CONCLUSIONS

Telemedicine represents the future of medical practice due to several benefits as well as convenience, increased access to care and decreased healthcare costs.

A content analysis of the reliability and quality of Youtube videos as a source of information on health-related post-COVID pain

Background

The use of the internet as a source of information has increased during the pandemic, and YouTube has become an increasingly important source of information on Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In the long COVID picture, which occurs when symptoms related to COVID-19 last longer than 1 month, pain involving the musculoskeletal system affects the quality of life quite negatively. The aim of this study was to investigate the informational value and quality of YouTube videos related to post-COVID pain.

Methods

In this study, 180 videos were listed using the search terms "pain after COVID," "post-COVID pain," and "long COVID and pain"(15 April 2022). Videos were classified according to video parameters and content analysis. Quality, reliability and accuracy of the videos were determined with the Global Quality Score (GQS), the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) Benchmark Criteria and the Modified DISCERN Questionnaire, respectively.

Results

One hundred videos that met the inclusion criteria were included in the assessment. Of these videos, 74 were found to be of low quality, 14 of moderate quality, and 12 of high quality; 21% contained insufficient data, 73% contained partially sufficient data, and 6% contained completely sufficient data. Videos uploaded by academic sources (66.7%) and physicians (12.5%) made up the majority of the high-quality group. A statistically significant correlation was found between the source of upload and number of views (p = 0.014), likes (p = 0.030), comments (p = 0.007), and video duration (p = 0.004). Video duration was found to have a poor positive correlation with GQS (r = 0.500), JAMA (r = 0.528), and modified DISCERN (r = 0.470) scores (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The findings of this study revealed that the majority of YouTube videos on post-COVID pain had low quality and partially sufficient data. High-quality videos were found to have longer durations and were uploaded by academic sources and physicians. The fact that only videos with English content at a certain time can be counted among the limitations. For patients suffering from post-COVID pain whose access to healthcare services was interrupted during the COVID pandemic, YouTube can be considered as an alternative source as well as a means of telerehabilitation. It can be argued that higher quality videos created by healthcare professionals could aid in patient education in the future.

Could YouTubeTM encourage men on prostate checks? A contemporary analysis

Objectives: To assess YouTube™ videos’ quality on prostate checks, especially on the digital rectal exam (DRE), and to investigate if they can inform patients correctly and eradicate their beliefs and myths.Methods: A search using as keywords “digital rectal exam for prostate cancer” was performed on the YouTubeTM platform. We selected the first 100 videos. To assess video quality content, Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for audio-visual content (PEMAT A/V) and Misinformation tool were used.Results: Seventy-three videos were suitable for the analyses. The median PEMAT A/V Understandability score and PEMAT A/V Actionability score were 46.2% (interquartile range [IQR]: 30.8-76.9) and 50.0% (IQR: 25.0-75.0), respectively. The medi-an PEMAT A/V Understandability and Actionability scores were 69.2% (IQR: 46.2-88.5) vs 46.2% (IQR: 30.8-61.5) (p = 0.01) and 100.0% (IQR: 87.5-100.0) vs 25.0% (IQR: 25.0-68.8)(p < 0.001), for healthcare workers vs patients, respectively. According to the Misinformation tool, the median misinforma-tion score of the overall videos was 2.2 (IQR:1.7-2.8). According to the target audience, the misinformation score was 2.8 (IQR: 2.4-3.5) vs 2.0 (IQR: 1.5-2.8) (p = 0.02), for healthcare workers vs patients, respectively. Conclusions: Currently, based on our analyses, YouTubeTM videos’ quality on DRE resulted unsatisfactory according to the PEMAT A/V score and the Misinformation tool. Videos targeted to healthcare workers got higher quality scores if compared to videos targeted to patients. Therefore, YouTubeTM videos’ may not be considered a reliable source of information on DRE for patients.

"YouTube™ as a source of information on placenta accreta: A quality analysis"

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the quality of YouTube™ videos on placenta accreta and to investigate if they can be used as a reliable source of information.

METHODS

We queried YouTube™ with terms related to placenta accreta. Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for audio-visual content (PEMAT A/V), Global Quality Score (GQS), DISCERN score and Misinformation tool were used to assess videos' quality content.

RESULTS

Sixty-four videos were suitable for the analyses. Of those, 42 (65.6%) and 22 (34.4%) were produces by healthcare works and others, respectively. The median PEMAT A/V Understandability and Actionability score was 75 and 66.7%, respectively. According to GQS, 31.2 and 45.3% videos were excellent or good and generally poor or poor, respectively. The median DISCERN score of section 1 was 27 (out of 40), of section 2 was 16 (out of 35) and of section 3 was 2 (out of 5). According to Misinformation tool, the worst described aspect was the one regarding the possible risk factor associated to placenta accreta. Performing the quality assessment according to video authoring entity, videos produced by healthcare workers harbored a higher quality content, relative to the others.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, the overall consideration of YouTube™ video content on placenta accreta is low. Societies should invest new sources in producing higher quality videos to provide a helpful tool for physician during the counselling with patients.

Analysis of quality information provided by "Dr. YouTubeTM" on Phimosis

The objective of the current study was to evaluate the quality of the information provided in YouTube^TM videos on phimosis. The term “phimosis” was searched on YouTube^TM, and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) for Audio/Visual Materials (Understandability and Actionability sections, good-quality score of minimum 70%) and misinformation scale (rated from 1 to 5) were used to assess video quality. Quality assessment was investigated over time. Of all, 60 were eligible for analysis. Healthcare providers were the authors of 75.0% of the videos, and 73.3% of the videos were patient-targeted. The median Understandability score was 42.9% (interquartile range [IQR]:34.5–58.9) and ranged from 28.6 to 42.9% (2013–2020). The median Actionability score was 50.0% (IQR:25.0–56.2) and ranged from 25.0 to 50.0% (2013–2020). The median misinformation score was 2.8/5 (IQR:1.6–3.6), and although the score fluctuated over time, the median score was 2.6 both in 2013 and in 2020. According to our results, although an increase of PEMAT over time was observed, the overall quality of the information uploaded on YouTube^TM is low. Therefore, at present, YouTube^TM cannot be recommended as a reliable source of information on phimosis. Video producers should upload higher-quality videos to help physicians and patients in the decision-making process.

YouTube is inadequate as an information source on delayed ejaculation

The prevalence of delayed ejaculation in sexually active men is reportedly 3%. Due to its rarity and uncertain definitions, people seek information about delayed ejaculation on the internet. YouTube is one of the largest video platforms preferred global for gathering medical information. We aimed to determine the quality of YouTube videos on delayed ejaculation. YouTube search was performed with the keywords “delayed and retarded ejaculation”, and we recorded the first 400 videos according to relevance. The search results were saved in the playlist, and the first 400 videos were evaluated by two independent urologists. DISCERN and Global Quality Scale (GQS) were used to assess the reliability and quality of videos. Repeated (n = 17), off-topic (n = 279), non-English videos (n = 37), and videos with no audio (n = 16) were excluded from the study. The remaining 51 videos were evaluated. DISCERN and GQS scores were statistically significantly associated with video durations (r = 0.329, P = 0.018 and r = 0.349, P = 0.012; respectively). A statistically significant association was also observed between and DISCERN and GQS scores with video power index values (r = 0.466, P = 0.001 and r = 0.422, P = 0.002; respectively). 62.7% (n = 32) videos were low quality, 23.5% (n = 12) were intermediate quality, and 13.7% (n = 7) were high quality according to the GQS. Most of the YouTube content on delayed ejaculation was of poor quality. Physicians should be aware of this situation, and take the lead in bringing high-quality videos about delayed ejaculation to the community.

Testicular cancer and YouTube: What do you expect from a social media platform?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the quality information on testicular cancer uploaded on YouTube™ videos.

METHODS

YouTube™ videos were searched using "Testicular cancer" as a keyword. The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool, the Misinformation scale, and the DISCERN tool were used to assess the quality information of YouTube™ videos on testicular cancer.

RESULTS

According to the selection criteria, 121 YouTube™ videos were collected for the analysis and stratified according to uploading year (2009-2014 vs 2015-2020). According to the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for audio-visual content, the overall Understandability score was 60% (interquartile range 45.5-75) and the overall Actionability score was 100% (interquartile range 66.7-100). According to the Misinformation scale, the lowest median was recorded for item 6 ("Effects on fertility") and the overall median Misinformation score was 2 (interquartile range 1.3-2.8). No statistically significant differences were observed according to uploading year (all P > 0.05). Of all, only 54 (44.6%) videos mentioning treatment were subsequently analyzed. Of these videos, the overall Understandability was 71.4% (interquartile range 56.3-84.6) and the overall Actionability was 100% (interquartile range 66.7-100). The overall Misinformation score was 2.8 (interquartile range 2.2-3.5). The median DISCERN score recorded for question 16 was 5 (interquartile range 3-5).

CONCLUSIONS

YouTube™ is a fast and open-access source for mass information. The overall quality of the testicular cancer contents provided is sadly unsatisfactory, in the present likewise in the past. However, YouTube™ videos mentioning treatment options showed higher quality content, than the remaining one. Nevertheless, all the videos analyzed underestimated the testicular cancer effects on fertility. Nowadays, YouTube™ cannot be recommended as a reliable source of information on testicular cancer.

Testicular pain and youtube™: are uploaded videos a reliable source to get information?

Several previous studies on YouTube™ on urological field have already been published. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the quality information of YouTube^TM videos on testicular pain. Using Google Trends tool, the frequency of worldwide YouTube^TM and Google Search on testicular pain was examined from 2010 to 2020. The keywords "testicular pain", "testicular ache" and "scrotal pain" were used on the YouTube platform and the first 100 YouTube^TM videos were analyzed for each one. The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) for Audiovisual (A/V) Materials, the DISCERN score and Misinformation tool were used to assess video quality. According to YouTube™ Search the mean relative frequency search for "testicular pain" ranged from 10.5 to 30.0%. According to Google^TM Search it ranged from 73.7 to 91.0%, Of all 300 videos, 117 were eligible for the analysis. The median number of views, thumbs-up and thumbs-down was respectively: 47060 (interquartile range [IQR] = 6297.0-144188.0), 289 (IQR = 40-912) and 19 (IQR = 4-53). Of all videos, 68.4% and 31.6% were produced respectively by Medical Doctors and Other. The median PEMAT Actionability and Understandability scores were 66.7% and 66.7%, respectively. The median DISCERN score ranged from 1 to 5, with an overall median score of 3, defined from question 16. The median misinformation score ranged from 2 to 5. In conclusion, an increased interest on testicular pain was recorded on both YouTube^TM and Google search during the last decade. However, according to the quality assessment tools used, YouTube™ users cannot get trustful and exhaustive information on testicular pain. Therefore, authors with/without medical background should improve the quality of information on YouTube™ videos.