Amanda Y Leong1, Ravina Sanghera1, Jaspreet Jhajj1, Nandini Desai2, Bikramjit Singh Jammu1, Mark J Makowsky3. 1. Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 2. Leduc Beaumont Devon Primary Care Network, Leduc, Alberta, Canada. 3. Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Electronic address: makowsky@ualberta.ca.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the content, quality and popularity of information about type 2 diabetes available on YouTube. METHODS: We searched YouTube with the terms Diabetes, Diabetes type 2, Diabetes South Asians, Diabetes Punjabi and Diabetes Hindi to identify videos concerning type 2 diabetes. A team of health-care providers independently classified the first 20 videos from each search as useful, misleading, or personal experience, rated them on a 5-point global quality scale (GQS) and categorized their content on a 26-point scale in duplicate. Useful videos were rated for reliability by using a 5-point modified DISCERN scale. Higher scores represent better quality, reliability and comprehensiveness. RESULTS: Of 100 videos, 71 met the inclusion criteria; 45 (63.4%) were rated as useful (median GQS, 3; interquartile range [IQR], 2 to 4); and 23 (32.4%) were deemed misleading (median GQS, 1; IQR, 1 to 2). Median reliability and content scores for useful videos were 3 (IQR, 2 to 3) and 5 (IQR, 3 to 10), respectively, and 6 videos met ≥ 4 of 5 reliability criteria. Overall, misleading videos were more popular than useful videos (median, 233 views/day; IQR, 26 to 523; vs. 8.3 views/day; IQR, 0.4 to 134.6; p<0.01). Culturally tailored videos were just as likely to be misleading and had similar GQS scores in comparison to nonculturally tailored videos (32.1% vs. 32.6% and 3 vs. 3, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The quality of identified videos concerning type 2 diabetes was variable, and misleading videos were popular. Further creation and curation of high-quality video resources is required.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the content, quality and popularity of information about type 2 diabetes available on YouTube. METHODS: We searched YouTube with the terms Diabetes, Diabetes type 2, Diabetes South Asians, Diabetes Punjabi and Diabetes Hindi to identify videos concerning type 2 diabetes. A team of health-care providers independently classified the first 20 videos from each search as useful, misleading, or personal experience, rated them on a 5-point global quality scale (GQS) and categorized their content on a 26-point scale in duplicate. Useful videos were rated for reliability by using a 5-point modified DISCERN scale. Higher scores represent better quality, reliability and comprehensiveness. RESULTS: Of 100 videos, 71 met the inclusion criteria; 45 (63.4%) were rated as useful (median GQS, 3; interquartile range [IQR], 2 to 4); and 23 (32.4%) were deemed misleading (median GQS, 1; IQR, 1 to 2). Median reliability and content scores for useful videos were 3 (IQR, 2 to 3) and 5 (IQR, 3 to 10), respectively, and 6 videos met ≥ 4 of 5 reliability criteria. Overall, misleading videos were more popular than useful videos (median, 233 views/day; IQR, 26 to 523; vs. 8.3 views/day; IQR, 0.4 to 134.6; p<0.01). Culturally tailored videos were just as likely to be misleading and had similar GQS scores in comparison to nonculturally tailored videos (32.1% vs. 32.6% and 3 vs. 3, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The quality of identified videos concerning type 2 diabetes was variable, and misleading videos were popular. Further creation and curation of high-quality video resources is required.
Keywords:
Asiatique du Sud; South Asian; YouTube; consumer health; diabète de type 2; médias sociaux; santé des consommateurs; social media; type 2 diabetes
Authors: Laísa B Maia; Juliana P Silva; Mateus B Souza; Nicholas Henschke; Vinicius C Oliveira Journal: Braz J Phys Ther Date: 2021-07-16 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Nickolas M Jones; Dana B Mukamel; Shaista Malik; Robert S Greenfield; Andrew Reikes; Nathan D Wong; Emilie Chow Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2020-08-20 Impact factor: 2.796