YouTube Videos as a Source of Misinformation on Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis

Goobie, G.C.; Guler, Sabina; Johannson, Kerri A.; Fisher, J.H.; Ryerson, Christopher J.

doi:10.1513/annalsats.201809-644oc

Cited by 105 publications

(104 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A relevant proportion (13/69, 19%) of studies assessed noncommunicable diseases, such as cancer, diabetes, and epilepsy. Most of the studies focused on the objective evaluation of information quality on YouTube [38,56,57,69,72,74,76,80,85]. Overall, 13% (9/69) of these studies used methods to assess the quality of the information.…”

Section: Noncommunicable Diseasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevalence of Health Misinformation on Social Media: Systematic Review

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Although at present there is broad agreement among researchers, health professionals, and policy makers on the need to control and combat health misinformation, the magnitude of this problem is still unknown. Consequently, it is fundamental to discover both the most prevalent health topics and the social media platforms from which these topics are initially framed and subsequently disseminated. Objective This systematic review aimed to identify the main health misinformation topics and their prevalence on different social media platforms, focusing on methodological quality and the diverse solutions that are being implemented to address this public health concern. Methods We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science for articles published in English before March 2019, with a focus on the study of health misinformation in social media. We defined health misinformation as a health-related claim that is based on anecdotal evidence, false, or misleading owing to the lack of existing scientific knowledge. We included (1) articles that focused on health misinformation in social media, including those in which the authors discussed the consequences or purposes of health misinformation and (2) studies that described empirical findings regarding the measurement of health misinformation on these platforms. Results A total of 69 studies were identified as eligible, and they covered a wide range of health topics and social media platforms. The topics were articulated around the following six principal categories: vaccines (32%), drugs or smoking (22%), noncommunicable diseases (19%), pandemics (10%), eating disorders (9%), and medical treatments (7%). Studies were mainly based on the following five methodological approaches: social network analysis (28%), evaluating content (26%), evaluating quality (24%), content/text analysis (16%), and sentiment analysis (6%). Health misinformation was most prevalent in studies related to smoking products and drugs such as opioids and marijuana. Posts with misinformation reached 87% in some studies. Health misinformation about vaccines was also very common (43%), with the human papilloma virus vaccine being the most affected. Health misinformation related to diets or pro–eating disorder arguments were moderate in comparison to the aforementioned topics (36%). Studies focused on diseases (ie, noncommunicable diseases and pandemics) also reported moderate misinformation rates (40%), especially in the case of cancer. Finally, the lowest levels of health misinformation were related to medical treatments (30%). Conclusions The prevalence of health misinformation was the highest on Twitter and on issues related to smoking products and drugs. However, misinformation on major public health issues, such as vaccines and diseases, was also high. Our study offers a comprehensive characterization of the dominant health misinformation topics and a comprehensive description of their prevalence on different social media platforms, which can guide future studies and help in the development of evidence-based digital policy action plans.

show abstract

Section: Noncommunicable Diseasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevalence of Health Misinformation on Social Media: Systematic Review

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many online resources provide information about IPF, but these are frequently biased and inaccurate [ 3 ]. For example, YouTube videos focused on IPF often contain incomplete, inaccurate, and potentially harmful information, with high levels of user engagement in videos containing inaccurate information [ 4 ]. Given recent controversy surrounding Facebook’s policies on censorship of inaccurate or potentially harmful information, it is an especially prescient time to investigate the accuracy of information disseminated via Facebook as it relates to chronic diseases such as IPF [ 5 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Media Content of Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Groups and Pages on Facebook: Cross-sectional Analysis

Kochan¹,

Ong²,

Guler³

et al. 2021

JMIR Public Health Surveill

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Patients use Facebook as a resource for medical information. We analyzed posts on idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF)-related Facebook groups and pages for the presence of guideline content, user engagement, and usefulness. Objective The objective of this study was to describe and analyze posts from Facebook groups and pages that primarily focus on IPF-related content. Methods Cross-sectional analysis was performed on a single date, identifying Facebook groups and pages resulting from separately searching “IPF” and “idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.” For inclusion, groups and pages needed to meet either search term and be in English, publicly available, and relevant to IPF. Every 10th post was assessed for general characteristics, source, focus, and user engagement metrics. Posts were analyzed for presence of IPF guideline content, useful scientific information (eg, scientific publications), useful support information (eg, information about support groups), and potentially harmful information. Results Eligibility criteria were met by 12 groups and 27 pages, leading to analysis of 523 posts. Of these, 42% contained guideline content, 24% provided useful support, 20% provided useful scientific information, and 5% contained potentially harmful information. The most common post source was nonmedical users (85%). Posts most frequently focused on IPF-related news (29%). Posts containing any guideline content had fewer likes or comments and a higher likelihood of containing potentially harmful content. Posts containing useful supportive information had more likes, shares, and comments. Conclusions Facebook contains useful information about IPF, but posts with misinformation and less guideline content have higher user engagement, making them more visible. Identifying ways to help patients with IPF discriminate between useful and harmful information on Facebook and other social media platforms is an important task for health care professionals.

show abstract

“…Another study showed that YouTube videos portraying immunization negatively were more highly rated by users than positive videos, but 45% of the negative videos contained misinformation [33]. In general, viewer engagement with YouTube videos appears to be higher when health-related videos contain personal stories, misinformation, and/or nonrecommended therapies [11,17,34,35].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceived Patient-Provider Communication Quality and Sociodemographic Factors Associated With Watching Health-Related Videos on YouTube: A Cross-Sectional Analysis

Langford¹,

Loeb²

2019

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Approximately 73% of US adults use YouTube, making it the most popular social media platform. Misinformation on social media is a growing concern; recent studies show a high proportion of misinformative health-related videos. Several studies on patient-provider communication and general health information seeking have been conducted. However, few studies to date have examined the potential association between patient-provider communication and health information seeking on specific social media platforms such as YouTube. A better understanding of this relationship may inform future health communication interventions. Objective The aim was to use nationally representative cross-sectional data to describe the association between perceived patient-provider communication quality and sociodemographic factors on watching YouTube health-related videos. Methods Data from the 2018 Health Information National Trends Survey were analyzed (N=3504). The primary outcome was whether participants watched a health-related video on YouTube over the past 12 months. A patient-provider communication composite score was created by summing responses about how often providers did the following: (1) gave you the chance to ask all the health-related questions you had, (2) gave attention to your feelings, (3) involved you in health care decisions as much as you wanted, (4) made sure that you understood the things you needed to do to take care of your health, (5) explained things in a way that you could understand, (6) spent enough time with you, and (7) helped you deal with feelings of uncertainty. Sociodemographic factors included age, gender, race/ethnicity, and education. Descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression were conducted. Results Approximately 1067 (35% weighted prevalence) participants reported watching a health-related video on YouTube. Higher perceived quality of patient-provider communication on the composite score was significantly associated with lower odds of watching health-related videos on YouTube. Regarding sociodemographic factors, increasing age and being a high school graduate (compared with college graduate) were associated with lower odds of watching health-related videos on YouTube; whereas, Hispanic and non-Hispanic Asians were more likely to have watched a health-related video on YouTube. For individual aspects of patient-physician communication, two of seven patient-provider communication variables were significant. Those who reported that providers “sometimes” spent enough time with them had higher odds of watching a health-related video on YouTube, compared with those who said providers “always” spent enough time with them. Participants reporting that they “never” have a chance to ask all their health-related questions also had higher odds of watching health-related videos on YouTube compared with those who reported “always.” Conclusions Higher per...

show abstract

YouTube Videos as a Source of Misinformation on Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis

Cited by 105 publications

References 14 publications

Prevalence of Health Misinformation on Social Media: Systematic Review

Prevalence of Health Misinformation on Social Media: Systematic Review

Social Media Content of Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Groups and Pages on Facebook: Cross-sectional Analysis

Perceived Patient-Provider Communication Quality and Sociodemographic Factors Associated With Watching Health-Related Videos on YouTube: A Cross-Sectional Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About