Literature DB >> 25502853

Characteristics of YouTubeTM Videos Related to Mammography.

Corey H Basch1, Grace Clarke Hillyer2, Zerlina L MacDonald3, Rachel Reeves3, Charles E Basch4.   

Abstract

With a monthly total of more than one billion unique visitors, YouTubeTM is one of the Internet's most visited websites and contributes to the growing amount of health-related information on the Internet. The purpose of this study was to analyze coverage of mammography screening in popular YouTubeTM videos. A total of 173 videos were included in the analysis. Compared with professionally created videos, consumer-created videos had a significantly greater number of comments (>9 comments 38.0% for consumer vs. 11.8% for professional videos, p=<0.001). Videos created by professionals more often portrayed general mammography information (97.1 vs. 88.7%) compared to those created by consumers. The vast majority of videos presented general information (93.6%) related to mammography, and almost two thirds addressed preparing for the test. Less than 20% dealt with other types of examinations. Approximately 30% discussed pain associated with the examination (35.3%) and addressed issues of anxiety (32.4%) and fear (29.5%). Nearly half of the videos presented information about the test results (46.2%). Over 25% covered medical or family history. The majority did not pertain to a specific age group. Future research should focus on analyzing the accuracy of the information in the videos.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast cancer; Mammography; Screening; Social media; YouTubeTM

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25502853     DOI: 10.1007/s13187-014-0769-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cancer Educ        ISSN: 0885-8195            Impact factor:   2.037


  5 in total

1.  An exploration of search patterns and credibility issues among older adults seeking online health information.

Authors:  Laura Robertson-Lang; Sonya Major; Heather Hemming
Journal:  Can J Aging       Date:  2011-11-16

2.  Summary of the evidence of breast cancer service screening outcomes in Europe and first estimate of the benefit and harm balance sheet.

Authors:  Eugenio Paci
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 2.136

3.  Breast cancer on the Internet: the quality of Swedish breast cancer websites.

Authors:  Elisabeth Nilsson-Ihrfelt; Marie-Louise Fjällskog; Carl Blomqvist; Johan Ahlgren; Per Edlund; Jörgen Hansen; Lena Malmberg; Kenneth Villman; Gerhard Andersson
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 4.380

4.  The role of non-profits in the mammogram debate.

Authors:  Jeyandini Fernando
Journal:  Yale J Biol Med       Date:  2011-03

Review 5.  The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review.

Authors: 
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2012-10-30       Impact factor: 79.321

  5 in total
  10 in total

1.  Developing a Mass Media Campaign to Promote Mammography Awareness in African American Women in the Nation's Capital.

Authors:  Sherrie Flynt Wallington; Bridget Oppong; Marquita Iddirisu; Lucile L Adams-Campbell
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2018-08

2.  Assessment of the Quality and Reliability of Intragastric Balloon Videos on YouTube.

Authors:  Akin Calisir; Ilhan Ece
Journal:  Obes Surg       Date:  2022-01-19       Impact factor: 4.129

3.  Maintaining the Social Flow of Evidence-Informed Palliative Care: Use and Misuse of YouTube.

Authors:  Nisha Rani Jamwal; Senthil Paramasivam Kumar
Journal:  Indian J Palliat Care       Date:  2016 Jan-Mar

4.  Frequencies of Private Mentions and Sharing of Mammography and Breast Cancer Terms on Facebook: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Marco Huesch; Alison Chetlen; Joel Segel; Susann Schetter
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2017-06-09       Impact factor: 5.428

Review 5.  Medical YouTube Videos and Methods of Evaluation: Literature Review.

Authors:  Brandy Drozd; Emily Couvillon; Andrea Suarez
Journal:  JMIR Med Educ       Date:  2018-02-12

6.  YouTube Videos as a Source of Information About Clinical Trials: Observational Study.

Authors:  Grace Clarke Hillyer; Sarah A MacLean; Melissa Beauchemin; Corey H Basch; Karen M Schmitt; Leslie Segall; Moshe Kelsen; Frances L Brogan; Gary K Schwartz
Journal:  JMIR Cancer       Date:  2018-06-26

7.  Breast Cancer on Instagram: A Descriptive Study.

Authors:  Corey H Basch; Sarah A MacLean
Journal:  Int J Prev Med       Date:  2019-10-09

Review 8.  Patient-Generated Health Photos and Videos Across Health and Well-being Contexts: Scoping Review.

Authors:  Bernd Ploderer; Atae Rezaei Aghdam; Kara Burns
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2022-04-12       Impact factor: 7.076

9.  Information on 'Overdiagnosis' in Breast Cancer Screening on Prominent United Kingdom- and Australia-Oriented Health Websites.

Authors:  Alex Ghanouni; Susanne F Meisel; Jolyn Hersch; Jo Waller; Jane Wardle; Cristina Renzi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-03-24       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  "Clicks, likes, shares and comments" a systematic review of breast cancer screening discourse in social media.

Authors:  Bence Döbrössy; Edmond Girasek; Anna Susánszky; Zsuzsa Koncz; Zsuzsa Győrffy; Virág Katalin Bognár
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-04-15       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.