Literature DB >> 31928900

Consulting "Dr. YouTube": an objective evaluation of hypospadias videos on a popular video-sharing website.

Amr Salama1, Janet Panoch1, Elhaam Bandali1, Aaron Carroll2, Sarah Wiehe3, Stephen Downs3, Mark P Cain1, Richard Frankel4, Katherine H Chan5.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Parents who make decisions about hypospadias repair for their child may seek information from online platforms such as YouTube.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the health literacy demand of hypospadias videos on YouTube using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Audiovisual Materials (PEMAT-A/V). STUDY
DESIGN: We performed a YouTube search using the term "hypospadias," limiting results to the first 100 videos. We excluded videos that were <1 min or >20 min and videos that were not in English or did not include subtitles. Two evaluators independently examined videos and determined PEMAT-A/V scores for understandability and actionability (i.e., ability to identify actions the viewer can take). Videos with scores >70% are understandable or actionable. The inter-rater reliability (kappa) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of PEMAT scores were calculated. Bivariate and multivariable linear regression models assessed the association of video characteristics with respective scores.
RESULTS: Of the 100 videos that were identified on YouTube, 47 (47%) were excluded leaving 53 for analysis: 14 were >20 min, 14 were <1 min, 9 had no audio or subtitles, 7 were not in English, 1 was a duplicate, 1 was unrelated to hypospadias, and 1 was deleted at the time of data analysis. Three (5.6%) were understandable (mean score 54.5%, standard deviation (SD) 14.9) and eight (15.1%) were actionable (mean score 21.8%, SD 16.6) (Extended Summary Figure). Kappa values ranged from 0.4 to 1. The ICC's were 0.55 and 0.33 for understandability and actionability, respectively. In the bivariate analysis, mean understandability scores were significantly higher for English language videos (p = 0.04), videos with animation (p = 0.002), and those produced by industry (p = 0.02). In the multivariable analysis, mean understandability scores were significantly higher for "expert testimonial" or "other" video types after adjusting for graphics type and overall tone (p = 0.04). Mean understandability scores were also significantly higher for videos with animation after adjusting for video type and overall tone (p = 0.01). Mean actionability scores were significantly higher for videos with a negative tone (p = 0.01). DISCUSSION: The vast majority of hypospadias-related YouTube content is not appropriate for users with low health literacy although certain types of videos, such those with animation and expert testimonials, scored higher on understandability than other types.
CONCLUSION: Due to the lack of sufficient online informational content regarding hypospadias, we plan to engage parents of sons with hypospadias in the development of high-quality patient educational materials about hypospadias.
Copyright © 2019 Journal of Pediatric Urology Company. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Decision making; Hypospadias; Pediatrics; Qualitative research

Year:  2019        PMID: 31928900      PMCID: PMC7186156          DOI: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2019.11.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pediatr Urol        ISSN: 1477-5131            Impact factor:   1.830


  24 in total

1.  Evaluating the quality of Internet health resources in pediatric urology.

Authors:  Angela M Fast; Christopher M Deibert; Gregory W Hruby; Kenneth I Glassberg
Journal:  J Pediatr Urol       Date:  2012-01-26       Impact factor: 1.830

2.  YouTube as a source of information on kidney stone disease.

Authors:  Akshay Sood; Sasmit Sarangi; Ambarish Pandey; Karthik Murugiah
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2010-12-04       Impact factor: 2.649

3.  Helpful or harmful? An examination of viewers' responses to nonsuicidal self-injury videos on YouTube.

Authors:  Stephen P Lewis; Nancy L Heath; Michael J Sornberger; Alexis E Arbuthnott
Journal:  J Adolesc Health       Date:  2012-04-04       Impact factor: 5.012

Review 4.  Healthcare information on YouTube: A systematic review.

Authors:  Kapil Chalil Madathil; A Joy Rivera-Rodriguez; Joel S Greenstein; Anand K Gramopadhye
Journal:  Health Informatics J       Date:  2014-03-25       Impact factor: 2.681

5.  Using learning analytics to evaluate a video-based lecture series.

Authors:  K H Vincent Lau; Pue Farooque; Gary Leydon; Michael L Schwartz; R Mark Sadler; Jeremy J Moeller
Journal:  Med Teach       Date:  2017-11-07       Impact factor: 3.650

6.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.

Authors:  J R Landis; G G Koch
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1977-03       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 7.  When vaccines go viral: an analysis of HPV vaccine coverage on YouTube.

Authors:  Rowena Briones; Xiaoli Nan; Kelly Madden; Leah Waks
Journal:  Health Commun       Date:  2011-10-27

8.  Patients' and health professionals' use of social media in health care: motives, barriers and expectations.

Authors:  Marjolijn L Antheunis; Kiek Tates; Theodoor E Nieboer
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2013-07-27

9.  Interrater reliability of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT).

Authors:  Julia Vishnevetsky; Chasity Burrows Walters; Kay See Tan
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2017-09-06

Review 10.  Worldwide prevalence of hypospadias.

Authors:  A Springer; M van den Heijkant; S Baumann
Journal:  J Pediatr Urol       Date:  2015-12-31       Impact factor: 1.830

View more
  5 in total

1.  Health Literacy and Web-Based Audiovisual Multimedia in Pituitary and Endoscopic Skull Base Surgery.

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

2.  Is YouTube a reliable source of health-related information? A systematic review.

Authors:  Wael Osman; Fatma Mohamed; Mohamed Elhassan; Abdulhadi Shoufan
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2022-05-19       Impact factor: 3.263

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

Authors:  Simone Cilio; Claudia Collà Ruvolo; Carmine Turco; Massimiliano Creta; Marco Capece; Roberto La Rocca; Giuseppe Celentano; Gianluigi Califano; Simone Morra; Alberto Melchionna; Francesco Mangiapia; Felice Crocetto; Paolo Verze; Alessandro Palmieri; Ciro Imbimbo; Vincenzo Mirone
Journal:  Int J Impot Res       Date:  2022-03-24       Impact factor: 2.896

4.  YouTube: A good source for retrograde intrarenal surgery?

Authors:  Senol Tonyali
Journal:  Investig Clin Urol       Date:  2021-03

Review 5.  Empowering Patients Living With Chronic Conditions Using Video as an Educational Tool: Scoping Review.

Authors:  Olga Navarro; Marta Escrivá; Raquel Faubel; Vicente Traver
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2021-07-06       Impact factor: 5.428

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.