YouTube as a source of patient education information for elbow ulnar collateral ligament injuries: a quality control content analysis

Abstract

Background: While online orthopedic resources are becoming an increasingly popular avenue for patient education, videos on YouTube are not subject to institutional or peer review. The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate the quality of YouTube videos for patient education in ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) injuries of the elbow. Methods: A search of the keywords “ulnar collateral ligament,” “ulnar collateral ligament injury,” “medial collateral ligament,” and “medial collateral ligament injury” was conducted through the YouTube search engine. Each video was categorized by source and content. Video quality, reliability, and accuracy were assessed by two independent raters using five metrics: Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria (range, 0–4) for video reliability; modified DISCERN score (range, 1–5) for video reliability; Global Quality Score (GQS) (range, 1–5) for video quality; ulnar collateral ligament-specific score (UCL-SS; range, 0–16), a novel score for comprehensiveness of health information presented; and accuracy score (AS; range, 1–3) for accuracy. Results: Video content comprised predominantly disease-specific information (52%) and surgical technique (33%). The most common video sources were physicians (42%) and commercial sources (23%). The mean JAMA score, modified DISCERN score, GQS, UCL-SS, and AS were 1.8, 2.4, 1.9, 5.3, and 2.7 respectively. For JAMA score, analysis of variance (ANOVA) yielded significant variation for video source (p<0.001) with non-physicians having lowest scores. Post hoc comparison tests showed significant differences between non-physicians and both physicians (p<0.01) and academic groups (p<0.01). For GQS, ANOVA yielded significant variation for video source (p<0.001) with physicians having highest scores, and post hoc comparison tests showed significant differences between physician and non-physician groups (p<0.01). For AS, ANOVA yielded significant variation for video source (p=0.02) with non-physicians having the lowest scores. Post hoc comparison tests showed significant differences between non-physician and physician groups (p<0.05).Conclusions: Overall, YouTube is not a reliable or high-quality source for patients seeking information regarding UCL injuries, especially with videos uploaded from non-physician sources. The multiplicity of low quality, low reliability, and irrelevant videos can create a cumbersome and even inaccurate learning experience for patients.

YouTube videos on ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction are highly variable in terms of reliability and quality: A quantitative analysis

“…12,13 Yu et al previously evaluated YouTube videos for UCL injuries and found that DISCERN did vary by source, with physician videos having higher scores than those made by nonphysicians. 16 The current study found no difference in DISCERN score based on video source. One possible explanation for this is that some physician videos were primarily surgical technique videos.…”

“…14,17,[23][24][25][26][27] Prior evaluation of YouTube videos on UCL injuries revealed 78% of videos were low quality; however, videos on UCLR were not specifically studied. 16 Building on these findings, the current study demonstrates that most YouTube videos for UCLR do not offer patients with high-quality information regarding the procedure.…”

“…15 Yu et al previously examined YouTube videos for elbow UCL injuries; however, they noted that their search may not have captured videos related to UCLR. 16 Thus, there remains a critical need to evaluate YouTube videos as a source of information for UCLR. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability and quality of UCLR videos using validated scoring instruments.…”

Ausência de recursos didáticos de alta qualidade sobre a capsulite adesiva no YouTube

“…► capsulite adesiva ► bursite ► gravação em video ► redes sociais ► internet video source/uploader, (5) content type, (6) days since upload, (7) view rate (views/day), and (8) likes. The authors and uploaders of the videos were classified into seven groups: (1) academic (related to authors or uploaders affiliated with research groups, universities, or colleges), ( 2) physician (related to independent physicians or groups of physicians without research or academic affiliation), (3) non-physicians (healthcare workers other than licensed medical doctors), (4) trainer, (5) medical source (content or animations from health websites), ( 6) patient, and (7) commercial.…”

“…Several studies have shown evidence that the educational quality of YouTube videos dealing with orthopaedic diseases is inadequate. 1 2 3 6 7 8 Only one study in the literature examines youtube videos related to adhesive capsulitis. 9 The results of this study were consistent with those of other research.…”