Quality and Reliability Analysis of YouTube Videos on Magnetic Resonance Imaging Claustrophobia

Abstract

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-induced anxiety is not infrequent with a reported incidence as high as 37% and the rate of failed MRI imaging due to claustrophobia ranges between 0.5% and 14.5%. The objective of this study was to evaluate the quality and reliability of YouTube TM videos on MRI claustrophobia. MethodsSixty-five videos were included in the final analysis. Video information analyzed included video length (minutes), video content, qualification of the video uploaders, time of upload, time since upload, the number of total views and the mean daily views, and like counts. We divided the videos according to the uploaders into professional and non-professional groups and further grouped the videos as useful and misleading. Data obtained from the videos were evaluated with three tools including subjective evaluation, Quality Criteria for Consumer Health Information (DISCERN), and Global Quality Scale (GQS) tools. ResultsThe mean video duration was found as 4.14±4.45 minutes. The mean view count was 104.59±408,788.68 and the mean like count was found as 272.55±1096.25. Seventeen (26.15%) videos were uploaded by professionals and 48 (73.85%) by non-professionals. Twenty-eight (43.08%) of the videos were useful and 37 (56.92%) were useless. The mean DISCERN and GQS scores were statistically significantly higher in the professional videos compared to the non-professional videos and in useful videos compared to non-useful videos (for all, p<0.001). ConclusionA majority of the YouTube TM videos concerning MRI claustrophobia were uploaded by non-professionals. Physicians and other healthcare personnel should be encouraged to provide useful and accurate videos and to direct patients appropriately.

Quality and Content Analysis: Can YouTube Videos on Agoraphobia Be Considered a Reliable Source?

“…YouTube TM content analysis, the duration varies according to the research subject. However, in a study on claustrophobia, the mean video duration was 4.4 minutes [5]; in a study on infertility, it was 8.1 minutes [16]; and in a study on autism, it was 8.53 minutes [17]. The longer mean video durations in our study may be related to the need for a more detailed explanation of specific psychiatric conditions.…”

“…However, it has been observed that a substantial rate of 26% was uploaded by non-professionals. Although it varies according to the field studied in the literature, it has been observed that the rate of professional videos and non-professional videos is high in some studies [5,14,22]. Different results between studies may be due to the prevalence, recognition rate, or characteristics of the diseases in the population.…”

“…Whether the video content is useful or useless/misleading was evaluated subjectively by the psychiatrists who conducted the study. For YouTube TM videos about agoraphobia, they were scored independently by two separate authors using the Quality Criteria for Consumer Health Information (DISCERN) and Global Quality Scale (GQS) questionnaires [5].…”

“…This tool scoring includes five items evaluated on a 5-point Likert scale and examines the purposes, reliability, and bias of information sources. According to the scoring result, above three points represents good, three points average, and below three points weak content reliability [5,8].…”

“…For this reason, especially the quality and reliability analysis of YouTube TM content has been the subject of scientific research in the medical field. Although video content and quality analysis studies have been carried out on many subjects, such as claustrophobia, hypoglycemia, rotator cuff tears, etc., it has been determined that there is no YouTube TM study on agoraphobia in the literature yet [5][6][7]. Our research aimed to examine YouTube TM videos on agoraphobia in terms of quality and content.…”