Personal protective equipment in Covid-19: Evidence-based quality and analysis of YouTube videos after one year of pandemic

Gerundo, Gerardo; Ruvolo, Claudia Collà; Puzone, Brunella; Califano, Gianluigi; Rocca, Roberto La; Parisi, Valentina; Capece, Marco; Celentano, Giuseppe; Creta, Massimiliano; Rengo, Giuseppe; Leosco, Dario; Abete, Pasquale; Longo, Nicola; Mirone, Vincenzo; Ferrara, Nicola

doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2021.11.013

Cited by 20 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Differently from Duran and Kizilkan, 23 a complete DISCERN tool assessed the reliability of YouTube TM videos mentioning treatment, as previously done. 16,[25][26][27][28][29] In conclusion, we also observed how quality information of YouTube TM content changed according to uploading year (2009-2014 vs 2015-2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 50%

“…The Misinformation scale enlightened that YouTube™ videos underestimated several aspects of TCA, such as testicular self‐examination, risk factors and physiopathology of the tumor, and the effects on fertility due to treatment options. Differently from Duran and Kizilkan, 23 a complete DISCERN tool assessed the reliability of YouTube™ videos mentioning treatment, as previously done 16,25–29 . In conclusion, we also observed how quality information of YouTube™ content changed according to uploading year (2009–2014 vs 2015–2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Testicular cancer and YouTube: What do you expect from a social media platform?

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To evaluate the quality information on testicular cancer uploaded on YouTube TM videos. Methods: YouTube TM videos were searched using "Testicular cancer" as a keyword. The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool, the Misinformation scale, and the DISCERN tool were used to assess the quality information of YouTube TM videos on testicular cancer. Results: According to the selection criteria, 121 YouTube TM videos were collected for the analysis and stratified according to uploading year (2009-2014 vs 2015-2020). According to the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for audio-visual content, the overall Understandability score was 60% (interquartile range 45.5-75) and the overall Actionability score was 100% (interquartile range 66.7-100). According to the Misinformation scale, the lowest median was recorded for item 6 ("Effects on fertility") and the overall median Misinformation score was 2 (interquartile range 1.3-2.8). No statistically significant differences were observed according to uploading year (all P > 0.05). Of all, only 54 (44.6%) videos mentioning treatment were subsequently analyzed. Of these videos, the overall Understandability was 71.4% (interquartile range 56.3-84.6) and the overall Actionability was 100% (interquartile range 66.7-100). The overall Misinformation score was 2.8 (interquartile range 2.2-3.5). The median DISCERN score recorded for question 16 was 5 (interquartile range 3-5). Conclusions: YouTube TM is a fast and open-access source for mass information. The overall quality of the testicular cancer contents provided is sadly unsatisfactory, in the present likewise in the past. However, YouTube TM videos mentioning treatment options showed higher quality content, than the remaining one. Nevertheless, all the videos analyzed underestimated the testicular cancer effects on fertility. Nowadays, YouTube TM cannot be recommended as a reliable source of information on testicular cancer.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 50%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

Testicular cancer and YouTube: What do you expect from a social media platform?

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The results of our study are consistent with other studies in the literatüre. In addition, there are studies showing that videos on Personal protective equipment in COVID prepared by Public Health Institutions have high DISCERN and GQS results, while videos created by individuals have low scores ( Gerundo et al, 2022 ). The present study showed that academic videos based on science offered high-quality and reliable content, yet videos uploaded by news channels provided inaccurate and misleading information to attract user attention and interaction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A content analysis of the reliability and quality of Youtube videos as a source of information on health-related post-COVID pain

Özduran

Büyükçoban

2022

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The use of the internet as a source of information has increased during the pandemic, and YouTube has become an increasingly important source of information on Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In the long COVID picture, which occurs when symptoms related to COVID-19 last longer than 1 month, pain involving the musculoskeletal system affects the quality of life quite negatively. The aim of this study was to investigate the informational value and quality of YouTube videos related to post-COVID pain. Methods In this study, 180 videos were listed using the search terms “pain after COVID,” “post-COVID pain,” and “long COVID and pain”(15 April 2022). Videos were classified according to video parameters and content analysis. Quality, reliability and accuracy of the videos were determined with the Global Quality Score (GQS), the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) Benchmark Criteria and the Modified DISCERN Questionnaire, respectively. Results One hundred videos that met the inclusion criteria were included in the assessment. Of these videos, 74 were found to be of low quality, 14 of moderate quality, and 12 of high quality; 21% contained insufficient data, 73% contained partially sufficient data, and 6% contained completely sufficient data. Videos uploaded by academic sources (66.7%) and physicians (12.5%) made up the majority of the high-quality group. A statistically significant correlation was found between the source of upload and number of views (p = 0.014), likes (p = 0.030), comments (p = 0.007), and video duration (p = 0.004). Video duration was found to have a poor positive correlation with GQS (r = 0.500), JAMA (r = 0.528), and modified DISCERN (r = 0.470) scores (p < 0.001). Conclusion The findings of this study revealed that the majority of YouTube videos on post-COVID pain had low quality and partially sufficient data. High-quality videos were found to have longer durations and were uploaded by academic sources and physicians. The fact that only videos with English content at a certain time can be counted among the limitations. For patients suffering from post-COVID pain whose access to healthcare services was interrupted during the COVID pandemic, YouTube can be considered as an alternative source as well as a means of telerehabilitation. It can be argued that higher quality videos created by healthcare professionals could aid in patient education in the future.

show abstract

“…To the best of our knowledge, no studies on DRE were found in the literature. Previous studies analyzed YouTube™ videos' quality on urological (20,21,(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30) and non-urological topics (31,32), highlighting a diffuse inaccuracy. No previous investigators evaluated YouTube™ videos' quality on DRE as a tool for patients' information.…”

Section: Original Papermentioning

confidence: 99%

Could YouTubeTM encourage men on prostate checks? A contemporary analysis

Morra

Napolitano

Ruvolo

et al. 2022

Arch Ital Urol Androl

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To assess YouTube™ videos’ quality on prostate checks, especially on the digital rectal exam (DRE), and to investigate if they can inform patients correctly and eradicate their beliefs and myths.Methods: A search using as keywords “digital rectal exam for prostate cancer” was performed on the YouTubeTM platform. We selected the ﬁrst 100 videos. To assess video quality content, Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for audio-visual content (PEMAT A/V) and Misinformation tool were used.Results: Seventy-three videos were suitable for the analyses. The median PEMAT A/V Understandability score and PEMAT A/V Actionability score were 46.2% (interquartile range [IQR]: 30.8-76.9) and 50.0% (IQR: 25.0-75.0), respectively. The medi-an PEMAT A/V Understandability and Actionability scores were 69.2% (IQR: 46.2-88.5) vs 46.2% (IQR: 30.8-61.5) (p = 0.01) and 100.0% (IQR: 87.5-100.0) vs 25.0% (IQR: 25.0-68.8)(p < 0.001), for healthcare workers vs patients, respectively. According to the Misinformation tool, the median misinforma-tion score of the overall videos was 2.2 (IQR:1.7-2.8). According to the target audience, the misinformation score was 2.8 (IQR: 2.4-3.5) vs 2.0 (IQR: 1.5-2.8) (p = 0.02), for healthcare workers vs patients, respectively. Conclusions: Currently, based on our analyses, YouTubeTM videos’ quality on DRE resulted unsatisfactory according to the PEMAT A/V score and the Misinformation tool. Videos targeted to healthcare workers got higher quality scores if compared to videos targeted to patients. Therefore, YouTubeTM videos’ may not be considered a reliable source of information on DRE for patients.

show abstract

Personal protective equipment in Covid-19: Evidence-based quality and analysis of YouTube videos after one year of pandemic

Cited by 20 publications

References 23 publications

Testicular cancer and YouTube: What do you expect from a social media platform?

Testicular cancer and YouTube: What do you expect from a social media platform?

A content analysis of the reliability and quality of Youtube videos as a source of information on health-related post-COVID pain

Could YouTubeTM encourage men on prostate checks? A contemporary analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About