Evaluation of YouTube Videos Regarding Clean Intermittent Catheterization Application

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the clean intermittent catheterization (CIC) training and education videos on YouTube.Methods: This study was conducted in English language in descriptive type to evaluate the content, reliability, and quality of Internet videos related to CIC training. The search was performed by using term “clean intermittent catheterization” and “intermittent self catheterization” on YouTube in August 2019. The content of the selected videos was analyzed by 2 independent experts in the field. The DISCERN questionnaire was used to analyze the reliability of the video and the global quality score (GQS) was used for the quality of the video.Results: When the contents of the 64 videos included in the study were examined, it was found that 41 of them contained useful information and 23 of them contained misleading information. DISCERN scores, video coverage scores, and GQS of videos with useful information were found to be statistically higher than those with misleading information (P<0.001). When the sources of the videos were examined, it was seen that 78.05% of the videos containing useful information were published by medical advertisement/for-profit companies (P<0.001). The reliability scores, coverage scores, and GQS of the videos from medical advertisement/for-profit companies were significantly higher than the other sources (P<0.001).Conclusions: In this study, it was seen that the majority of YouTube CIC training videos examined within the scope of the research were published by medical advertisement/for-profit companies and most of these videos contain useful information.

Are HoLEP Surgical Videos on YouTube Biased and Misleading or Are They Leading the Industry?

“…There was also no difference between the two groups in relation to the total number of views, likes and dislikes. A previous study compared videos as useful and misleading, and in contrast to our findings, the authors reported the comprehensiveness score of GQS to be statistically significantly higher in useful videos (21). In the same study, when the data were compared according to the upload source, the GQS, misleading information and comprehensiveness scores were found to be statistically higher for the videos that had been uploaded by for-profit companies (21).…”

“…A previous study compared videos as useful and misleading, and in contrast to our findings, the authors reported the comprehensiveness score of GQS to be statistically significantly higher in useful videos (21). In the same study, when the data were compared according to the upload source, the GQS, misleading information and comprehensiveness scores were found to be statistically higher for the videos that had been uploaded by for-profit companies (21). In contrast, in our study, we also evaluated the videos using JAMA, PEMAT and Likert scales and found that the PEMAT and misinformation scores were higher in the videos uploaded by Group 2.…”

“…In another study, it was proven that fake news or inaccurate content spread faster in the internet environment and created more interaction (20). Other researchers similarly emphasized that training videos for skill development might mislead patients due to the presence of unreliable information (21). In our study, regardless of the upload source, we observed that 16.2% had extreme-or high-degree misinformation while commercial bias was present in 55.7%.…”

Youtube English videos as a source of information on shoulder exercise after breast cancer surgery

“…This shows that videos with useful content are aired longer. As expected, the videos with useful information included in our study had higher reliability, comprehensiveness, and GQS scores than misleading videos, which is consistent with the results of studies conducted with a similar methodology in the literature [21, 23,36,37,[39][40][41].…”

“…In line with previous studies, we determined that the source of videos with useful content was mostly universities/professional organizations/physicians/physiotherapists, while the source of those containing misleading information was mostly independent health information websites [21,36,39,40,42]. When we examined the distribution of the presenters, the rates of the videos presented by physicians, non-physician healthcare professionals, individuals, and off-camera narrators were encountered at similar rates in the useful and misleading information groups, and there was no signi cant difference between the two groups.…”