Laísa B Maia1, Juliana P Silva1, Mateus B Souza1, Nicholas Henschke2, Vinicius C Oliveira3. 1. Postgraduate Program in Rehabilitation and Functional Performance, Universidade Federal dos Vales do Jequitinhonha e Mucuri (UFVJM), Diamantina, MG, Brasil. 2. Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 3. Postgraduate Program in Rehabilitation and Functional Performance, Universidade Federal dos Vales do Jequitinhonha e Mucuri (UFVJM), Diamantina, MG, Brasil. Electronic address: vcunhaoliveira@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Quality of low back pain (LBP) information offered on YouTube ™ is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To describe the current low back pain information available on YouTube ™ and determine if these videos report information that aligns with clinical guidelines. Further analysis explored whether specific features of the videos explain their popularity. METHODS: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted on videos related to LBP on YouTube™ with the 200 most viewed videos using the term "low back pain." The videos were independently viewed and assessed by two researchers for specific video characteristics, LBP specific content, and compliance with guidelines. The association between video characteristics or content with popularity (i.e., views, likes, dislikes, and comments) was investigated using regression models. RESULTS: The median number of views was 2 018 167. Only 59 (29.5%) of the videos reported at least one diagnostic recommendation from clinical guidelines, and only 100 (50%) reported a treatment recommendation that aligned with clinical guidelines. Apart from year of upload, no variables were identified that were independently associated with popularity or engagement of the videos. CONCLUSION: The information related to LBP offered on YouTube™ is often not evidence-based and there is the tendency to prioritize information on interventions rather than understanding the LBP process. Factors related to engagement with content about LBP on YouTube™ remains uncertain, indicating further need for knowledge translation in this field.
BACKGROUND: Quality of low back pain (LBP) information offered on YouTube ™ is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To describe the current low back pain information available on YouTube ™ and determine if these videos report information that aligns with clinical guidelines. Further analysis explored whether specific features of the videos explain their popularity. METHODS: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted on videos related to LBP on YouTube™ with the 200 most viewed videos using the term "low back pain." The videos were independently viewed and assessed by two researchers for specific video characteristics, LBP specific content, and compliance with guidelines. The association between video characteristics or content with popularity (i.e., views, likes, dislikes, and comments) was investigated using regression models. RESULTS: The median number of views was 2 018 167. Only 59 (29.5%) of the videos reported at least one diagnostic recommendation from clinical guidelines, and only 100 (50%) reported a treatment recommendation that aligned with clinical guidelines. Apart from year of upload, no variables were identified that were independently associated with popularity or engagement of the videos. CONCLUSION: The information related to LBP offered on YouTube™ is often not evidence-based and there is the tendency to prioritize information on interventions rather than understanding the LBP process. Factors related to engagement with content about LBP on YouTube™ remains uncertain, indicating further need for knowledge translation in this field.
Authors: Linda Ruppert; Brian Køster; Anna Maria Siegert; Christian Cop; Lindsay Boyers; Chante Karimkhani; Helena Winston; Jessica Mounessa; Robert P Dellavalle; Daphne Reinau; Thomas Diepgen; Christian Surber Journal: Dermatol Online J Date: 2017-01-15
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
Authors: Lauren C Heathcote; Joshua W Pate; Anna L Park; Hayley B Leake; G Lorimer Moseley; Corey A Kronman; Molly Fischer; Inge Timmers; Laura E Simons Journal: PeerJ Date: 2019-03-22 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Xiang Zhang; Yi Yang; Yi-Wei Shen; Ke-Rui Zhang; Li-Tai Ma; Chen Ding; Bei-Yu Wang; Yang Meng; Hao Liu Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2022-09-21