| Literature DB >> 30514370 |
Pratikshya Thapa1, Ashish Thapa2, Nabina Khadka1, Ruchi Bhattarai3, Samir Jha4, Amit Khanal5, Bibhusan Basnet6.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Social media has provided an online environment for patients to discuss regarding their health and seek medical information. The primary aim of our study was to analyze the quality of information shared on YouTube regarding attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).Entities:
Keywords: ADHD; Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; Health informatic; Social media; YouTube
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30514370 PMCID: PMC6277992 DOI: 10.1186/s13104-018-3962-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Res Notes ISSN: 1756-0500
Fig. 1Flow chart showing method of video selection
Table with video demographics based on sources and engagement metrics
| Source/parameter | Personal experience | Commercial drug companies | Institutions/medical society | Individual physician/psychiatrist | News report | Other websites | Others (non-classified) | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of videos (%) | 37 (23.27%) | 5 (3.14%) | 17 (10.69%) | 27 (16.98%) | 11 (6.92%) | 50 (31.45%) | 12 (7.55%) | 159 (100%) |
| Number of views (± SD) | 357,188.4 ± 107,540.04 | 169,677.2 ± 69,674.7 | 64,650.76 ± 16,250.36 | 39,757.11 ± 8182.89 | 56,432 ± 8646.13 | 159,828.34 ± 33,815.45 | 192,104.25 ± 71,048.94 | 170,781.65 ± 29,044.41 |
| Duration since upload (days) (± SD) | 1505.48 ± 162.53 | 2115 ± 81.78 | 1673.23 ± 233.47 | 1805.63 ± 120.34 | 1432.45 ± 239.44 | 1816.24 ± 131.28 | 1210.25 ± 214.17 | 1663.94 ± 69.58 |
| Opinion | ||||||||
| Number of likes (± SD) | 2482.45 ± 874.57 | 456.2 ± 136.87 | 201.12 ± 60.9 | 297.81 ± 110.92 | 733.81 ± 208.98 | 1835.86 ± 841.38 | 1959.91 ± 1075.04 | 1440.1 ± 348.07 |
| Number of dislikes (± SD) | 128.54 ± 37.83 | 39.8 ± 13.87 | 17.06 ± 4.9 | 26.81 ± 14.05 | 85.81 ± 36.49 | 64.84 ± 18.77 | 124.83 ± 54.42 | 73.29 ± 12.17 |
| Duration of videos (± SD) | 6.32 ± 0.93 | 3.61 ± 1.34 | 26.25 ± 9.68 | 10.17 ± 4.04 | 9.33 ± 2.65 | 9.83 ± 2.12 | 11.67 ± 3.99 | 10.73 ± 1.5 |
| Usefulness Score (± SD) | 2.16 ± 0.34 | 2.5 ± 1.93 | 2.96 ± 0.94 | 3.33 ± 0.51 | 5 ± 0.75 | 2.45 ± 0.41 | 3.33 ± 1.03 | 2.83 ± 0.23 |
| Role of parents mentioned in management (%) (± SD) | 12 (32.43%) | 2 (40.0%) | 7 (41.18%) | 13 (48.15%) | 8 (72.73%) | 15 (30.00%) | 6 (50.00%) | 63 (39.62%) |
| Role of teachers mentioned in management (%) | 1 (2.7%) | 1 (20%) | 3 (17.65%) | 5 (18.52%) | 4 (36.36%) | 13 (26.00%) | 5 (41.67%) | 32 (20.13%) |
| Role of Medications mentioned in management (%) | 14 (37.84%) | 1 (20%) | 6 (35.29%) | 9 (33.33%) | 9 (81.82%) | 17 (34%) | 3 (25%) | 59 (37%) |
| Role of CBT mentioned in management (%) | 5 (13.51%) | 1 (20%) | 4 (2353%) | 9 (33.33%) | 1 (9.09%) | 4 (8%) | 2 (16.67%) | 26 (16.35%) |
| Length of videos (min) | ||||||||
| < 5 | 23 | 3 | 11 | 20 | 4 | 27 | 3 | 91 |
| 5–10 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 13 | 5 | 34 |
| 10–15 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 14 |
| > 15 | 3 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 20 |
Table with video demographics based on usefulness score
| Relevance/parameters | Very useful | Useful | Not useful | Misleading | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of videos (%) | 8 (5.03%) | 44 (27.67%) | 46 (28.93%) | 61 (38.36%) | |
| Number of views (± SD) | 51,343.5 ± 18,968.64 | 97,041.61 ± 22,902.16 | 216,957.37 ± 61,542.78 | 204,814.16 ± 56,822.95 | |
| Duration since upload in days (± SD) | 1581.25 ± 169.63 | 1668.52 ± 126.47 | 1577.1 ± 145.28 | 1736.97 ± 111.27 | |
| Opinion | |||||
| Number of likes (± SD) | 162.12 ± 57.54 | 841.7 ± 324.15 | 2548.65 ± 1026.72 | 1203.38 ± 395.9 | 0.012 |
| Number of dislikes (± SD) | 18.12 ± 6.71 | 64.89 ± 19.15 | 85.15 ± 22.23 | 77.64 ± 23.19 | 0.01 |
| Duration of videos (± SD) | 24.13 ± 11 | 11.2 ± 2.56 | 9.46 ± 3.08 | 9.6 ± 2.13 | 0.02 |
| Usefulness score (± SD) | 10 ± 0 | 5.8 ± 0.18 | 2.5 ± 0 | 0 ± 0 | |
SD standard deviation
P value denotes significance between very useful and misleading group