YouTube as a Source of Patient Information on Myofascial Pain Syndrome

Abstract

Introduction Myofascial pain syndrome is a local disorder characterised by pathological myofascial constrictions and trigger points. One of the most popular sources of internet-based information for patients is YouTube, which provides a lot of videos related to myofascial pain syndrome, making it one of the top clinical conditions searched for on the site. This study aimed to examine the quality of the YouTube video content on myofascial pain syndrome. Method This study was designed as a cross-sectional study and used the YouTube video sharing website as the main source of data. A search of the relevant videos was performed by entering the words “myofascial pain syndrome” in June 2021. Video characteristics were recorded, and the quality of the videos was assessed according to the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, the DISCERN Scale and the Global Quality Scale. Results A total of 322 videos were evaluated, 186 of which were subjected to analysis after applying the inclusion/exclusion criteria. The videos were categorised into groups, with 10 (5.4%) falling into the high-quality group, 16 (8.6%) into the intermediate quality group, and 160 (86%) into the low-quality group. The findings from the study showed that the most popular videos, the highest number of video likes and the highest number of video views were in the intermediate group, while the high-quality group had the lowest popularity level, number of video likes and number of video views (p ˂ 0.05). Conclusions Although there are videos with high-quality content on YouTube offering guidance to patients about the disease, it is important to keep in mind that inaccurate and deficient information about the disease may also be present on this platform.

Youtube videos for the most commonly applied radionuclide treatments: sufficient for patients as an information source?

“…As well as choosing the videos by patients that they can really benefit is essential, it is thought that the most-watched, liked, commented and popular videos may not really inform the patients meticulously and precisely. In parallel, a study by Şan [22] about YouTube videos of myofascial syndrome showed that the VPI scores, video likes and video views were highest in the intermediate group; on the contrary number of video likes and number of video views were the lowest in the high-quality group. These findings emphasize that the most popular videos on the internet may not always include the highest quality information [22].…”

“…In parallel, a study by Şan [22] about YouTube videos of myofascial syndrome showed that the VPI scores, video likes and video views were highest in the intermediate group; on the contrary number of video likes and number of video views were the lowest in the high-quality group. These findings emphasize that the most popular videos on the internet may not always include the highest quality information [22]. In another study by Kocyigit et al .…”

“…This may be due to the fact that the significant part of the uploaded videos consists of patient experiences, videos uploaded by nonphysician health care workers and physicians other than nuclear medicine specialty. Likewise, other studies analyzing video quality of myofascial pain syndrome, disc herniation and musculoskeletal ultrasound imaging revealed that most of the videos were of low quality on YouTube [22,25,26]. On the contrary, a study analyzing Covid-19 and rheumatic disease link by Kocyigit et al .…”

“…The most viewed and commented videos as well as most liked and the videos of highest VPI scores were nonphysician sourced videos. In a study by Şan [22] that evaluates the video quality of myofascial pain syndrome, it was revealed that most viewed and commented videos were physician-sourced videos. In our study, the highest quality videos were the physician-sourced videos in terms of JAMA, DISCERN and GQS scores.…”

“…Since our study did not include any animal or human participants and the videos that incorporated in this study were accessible for everyone; the study did not require the approval of the ethics committee. There are similar studies with the same protocol in the literature [22–24].…”