Garson Chan1,2,3, Emma Yanko2, Liang Qu3,4, Ariel Zilberlicht5, Deb Karmakar6, Athina Pirpiris7, Johan Gani3,8. 1. Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Canada. 2. College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Canada. 3. Department of Urology, Austin Health, University of Melbourne, Australia. 4. Young Urology Researchers Organization (YURO), Australia. 5. Division of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center, Technion University, Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Haifa, Israel. 6. Mercy Health, Victoria, Australia. 7. Eastern Health, Victoria, Australia. 8. Department of Urology, Western Health, University of Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patients in search of answers to health-related questions often seek out information on the internet. The current study aimed to evaluate the quality of videos on the topic of mesh pertaining to its use in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse. METHODS: A total of 100 videos on the topic of mesh on YouTubeTM were screened in this study. From that, a further 30 were selected for review. Five experts in the medical field reviewed each video anonymously, using two video assessment tools. Video characteristics were collected and evaluated. Videos were assessed based on a Global Assessment Score (GAS) and Patient Education Tool for Audiovisual Materials (PEMAT-A/V) scale for ease of patient access and comprehension. The overall correlation between raters and videos was also compared. RESULTS: The GAS and PEMAT-A/V ratings correlation across multiple raters demonstrated excellent inter-rater reliability. We found that the overall GAS score and recommendation was substandard, and the median PEMAT-A/V understandability score was 70% (poorly understandable). Most videos contained some form of marketing, and a scarce number had reliable sources of information. Evidence of neutrality was low. CONCLUSIONS: Through the expert assessment of videos using quality assessment tools, this study demonstrated the overall variable quality of mesh videos on YouTubeTM and the need for further education regarding patient resources.
INTRODUCTION: Patients in search of answers to health-related questions often seek out information on the internet. The current study aimed to evaluate the quality of videos on the topic of mesh pertaining to its use in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse. METHODS: A total of 100 videos on the topic of mesh on YouTubeTM were screened in this study. From that, a further 30 were selected for review. Five experts in the medical field reviewed each video anonymously, using two video assessment tools. Video characteristics were collected and evaluated. Videos were assessed based on a Global Assessment Score (GAS) and Patient Education Tool for Audiovisual Materials (PEMAT-A/V) scale for ease of patient access and comprehension. The overall correlation between raters and videos was also compared. RESULTS: The GAS and PEMAT-A/V ratings correlation across multiple raters demonstrated excellent inter-rater reliability. We found that the overall GAS score and recommendation was substandard, and the median PEMAT-A/V understandability score was 70% (poorly understandable). Most videos contained some form of marketing, and a scarce number had reliable sources of information. Evidence of neutrality was low. CONCLUSIONS: Through the expert assessment of videos using quality assessment tools, this study demonstrated the overall variable quality of mesh videos on YouTubeTM and the need for further education regarding patient resources.
Authors: Farah Ahmad; Pamela L Hudak; Kim Bercovitz; Elisa Hollenberg; Wendy Levinson Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2006-09-29 Impact factor: 5.428