Kaustubh Bora1, Dulmoni Das2,3, Bhupen Barman4, Probodh Borah5. 1. a ICMR - Regional Medical Research Centre, N.E. Region , Dibrugarh , Assam , India. 2. b Department of Psychology , Indira Gandhi National Open University, Regional Study Centre , Shillong , Meghalaya , India. 3. c Department of Mental Health Nursing , Army Institute of Nursing , Guwahati , Assam , India. 4. d Department of General Medicine , North Eastern Indira Gandhi Regional Institute of Health and Medical Sciences (NEIGRIHMS) , Shillong , Meghalaya , India. 5. e Bioinformatics Infrastructure Facility (BIF) & Advanced State Biotech Hub and Department of Animal Biotechnology , College of Veterinary Sciences , Khanapara, Guwahati , Assam , India.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Internet-videos, though popular sources of public health information, are often unverified and anecdotal. We critically evaluated YouTube videos about Zika virus available during the recent Zika pandemic. METHODS: Hundred-and-one videos were retrieved from YouTube (search term: zika virus). Based upon content, they were classified as: informative, misleading or personal experience videos. Quality and reliability of these videos were evaluated using standardized tools. The viewer interaction metrics (e.g. no. of views, shares, etc.), video characteristics (video length, etc.) and the sources of upload were also assessed; and their relationship with the type, quality and reliability of the videos analyzed. RESULTS: Overall, 70.3% videos were informative, while 23.8% and 5.9% videos were misleading and related to personal experiences, respectively. Although with shorter lengths (P < 0.01) and superior quality (P < 0.01), yet informative videos were viewed (P = 0.054), liked (P < 0.01) and shared (P < 0.05) less often than their misleading counterparts. Videos from independent users were more likely to be misleading (adjusted OR = 6.48, 95% CI: 1.69 - 24.83), of poorer (P < 0.05) quality and reliability than government/news agency videos. CONCLUSION: A considerable chunk of the videos were misleading. They were more popular (than informative videos) and could potentially spread misinformation. Videos from trustworthy sources like university/health organizations were scarce. Curation/authentication of health information in online video platforms (like YouTube) is necessary. We discuss means to harness them as useful source of information and highlight measures to curb dissemination of misinformation during public health emergencies.
BACKGROUND: Internet-videos, though popular sources of public health information, are often unverified and anecdotal. We critically evaluated YouTube videos about Zika virus available during the recent Zika pandemic. METHODS: Hundred-and-one videos were retrieved from YouTube (search term: zika virus). Based upon content, they were classified as: informative, misleading or personal experience videos. Quality and reliability of these videos were evaluated using standardized tools. The viewer interaction metrics (e.g. no. of views, shares, etc.), video characteristics (video length, etc.) and the sources of upload were also assessed; and their relationship with the type, quality and reliability of the videos analyzed. RESULTS: Overall, 70.3% videos were informative, while 23.8% and 5.9% videos were misleading and related to personal experiences, respectively. Although with shorter lengths (P < 0.01) and superior quality (P < 0.01), yet informative videos were viewed (P = 0.054), liked (P < 0.01) and shared (P < 0.05) less often than their misleading counterparts. Videos from independent users were more likely to be misleading (adjusted OR = 6.48, 95% CI: 1.69 - 24.83), of poorer (P < 0.05) quality and reliability than government/news agency videos. CONCLUSION: A considerable chunk of the videos were misleading. They were more popular (than informative videos) and could potentially spread misinformation. Videos from trustworthy sources like university/health organizations were scarce. Curation/authentication of health information in online video platforms (like YouTube) is necessary. We discuss means to harness them as useful source of information and highlight measures to curb dissemination of misinformation during public health emergencies.
Entities:
Keywords:
Public health; health communication; health information; internet; pandemic; social media
Authors: Amarbir S Gill; Philip C Biggs; Garrett Hagwood; Angela M Beliveau; Kiarash Shahlaie; E B Strong; Toby O Steele Journal: J Neurol Surg B Skull Base Date: 2021-05-17
Authors: Pramod R Regmi; Shovita Dhakal Adhikari; Nirmal Aryal; Sharada P Wasti; Edwin van Teijlingen Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-07-23 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Ivan Herrera-Peco; Beatriz Jiménez-Gómez; Carlos Santiago Romero Magdalena; Juan José Deudero; María García-Puente; Elvira Benítez De Gracia; Carlos Ruiz Núñez Journal: Vaccines (Basel) Date: 2021-06-15