advertising
-
1
Lee MS, Vanore JV, Thomas JL, et al: Diagnosis and treatment of adult flatfoot. J Foot Ankle Surg 44: 78, 2005.
-
2
Ricco A, Richards S, Herring JA: “Disorders of the Foot,” in Tachdjian’s Pediatric Orthopaedics: From the Texas Scottish Rite Hospital for Children, 5th ed, edited by JA Herring, p 775, Elsevier Saunders, Philadelphia, 2014.
-
3
Öğüt T, Yontar NS: Flatfoot in adults. TOTBİD Derg 12: 425, 2013.
-
4
Drozd B, Couvillon E, Suarez A: Medical YouTube videos and methods of evaluation: literature review. JMIR Med Educ 4: e3, 2018.
-
5
Radadiya D, Gonzalez-Estrada A, Lira-Vera JE, et al: Colonoscopy videos on YouTube: are they a good source of patient education? Endosc Int Open 8: E598, 2020.
-
6
Ozsoy-Unubol T, Alanbay-Yagci E: YouTube as a source of information on fibromyalgia. Int J Rheum Dis 24: 197, 2021.
-
7
Freberg K: “Social Media,” in Encyclopedia of Public Relations, 2nd Ed, edited by RL Heath, p 847, SAGE Publications Ltd, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2013.
-
8
Kuçuk B, Sirakaya E: An analysis of YouTube videos as educational resources for patients about refractive surgery. Cornea 39: 491, 2020.
-
9
Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, et al: DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health 53: 105, 1999.
-
10
Staunton PF, Baker JF, Green J, et al: Online curves: a quality analysis of scoliosis videos on YouTube. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40: 1857, 2015.
-
11
Kuru T, Erken HY: Evaluation of the quality and reliability of YouTube videos on rotator cuff tears. Cureus 12: e6852, 2020.
-
12
Epstein HAB: Cyberchondriacs. J Hosp Librariansh 17: 317, 2017.
-
13
Dalton DM, Kelly EG, Molony DC: Availability of accessible and high-quality information on the Internet for patients regarding the diagnosis and management of rotator cuff tears. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 24: e135, 2015.
-
14
Fast AM, Deibert CM, Hruby GW, et al: Evaluating the quality of Internet health resources in pediatric urology. J Pediatr Urol 9: 151, 2013.
-
15
O’Neill SC, Nagle M, Baker JF, et al: An assessment of the readability and quality of elective orthopaedic information on the internet. Acta Orthop Belg 80: 153, 2014.
-
16
Starman JS, Gettys FK, Capo JA, et al: Quality and content of Internet-based information for ten common orthopaedic sports medicine diagnoses. J Bone Joint Surg 92: 1612, 2010.
-
17
Fischer J, Geurts J, Valderrabano V, et al: Educational quality of YouTube videos on knee arthrocentesis. J Clin Rheumatol 19: 373, 2013.
-
18
Mukewar S, Mani P, Wu X, et al: YouTube and inflammatory bowel disease. J Crohns Colitis 7: 392, 2013.
-
19
Ho M, Stothers L, Lazare D, et al: Evaluation of educational content of YouTube videos relating to neurogenic bladder and intermittent catheterization. Can Urol Assoc J 9: 320, 2015.
-
20
Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA: Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: caveant lector et viewor—let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA 277: 1244, 1997.
-
21
Desai T, Shariff A, Dhingra V, et al: Is content really king? An objective analysis of the public’s response to medical videos on YouTube. PLoS One 8: e82469, 2013.
-
22
Gosselin MM, Mulcahey MK, Feller E, et al: Examining Internet resources on gender differences in ACL injuries: what patients are reading. Knee 20: 196, 2013.
-
23
Duncan IC, Kane PW, Lawson KA, et al: Evaluation of information available on the Internet regarding anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 29: 1101, 2013.
-
24
Johnson CC, Garcia GH, Liu JN, et al: Internet resources for Tommy John injuries: what are patients reading? J Shoulder Elbow Surg 25: e386, 2016.
-
25
Uzun M, Cingoz T, Duran ME, et al: The videos on YouTube related to hallux valgus surgery have insufficient information. Foot Ankle Surg 28: 414, 2022.
-
26
Tekin SB, Bozgeyik B. Quality and content analysis of hallux valgus videos on YouTube. J Foot Ankle Surg 62: 85, 2023.
Evaluation of YouTube Information Quality About Pes Planus
Search for other papers by Hacı Ali Olçar in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Berna Güngör in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Tolgahan Kuru in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Davut Aydın in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Gürdal Nusran in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Background: The aim of this study was to measure the quality of information about “flatfoot” and “pes planus” presented online on the social media site YouTube and to determine the trends of viewers to medical information on YouTube.
Methods: “Flatfoot and pes planus” was typed into the YouTube search module. From the search results, videos with 50,000 views or more, longer than 45 seconds, and containing information about flatfoot and pes planus disease were selected. DISCERN and JAMA scoring, daily average views, number of likes, and number of comments were collected from 53 videos that met the criteria. The profession of the sharer was evaluated in terms of the information quality of the sharing and the orientation of the audience.
Results: The mean number of views per day of the examined videos was 2,047. The mean video presentation time was 8 minutes 50 seconds. The mean JAMA score was 2 of 4 and the mean DISCERN score was 38.16 of 75. According to the DISCERN score according to the professions, the video quality was moderate for doctors (41.44 ± 12.99), moderate for physiotherapists (41.91 ± 9.04), poor for coaches (32.78 ± 7.87), poor for patients (34.50 ± 5.32), and weak for others (34.89 ± 14.00). According to the Spearman correlation between DISCERN score and mean daily viewing, significant relationships were found for the doctors (P = .0102) and others groups (P = .0033); however, no significant relationships were observed for the physiotherapists group (P = .1073), the flatfoot patients group (P = .5363), and the coaches group (P = .9111). There were significant relationships between like and comment counts in all groups (doctors, P = .0088; coaches, P = .0069; physiotherapists, P = .0007; others, P =.0018; and patients, P = .0066).
Conclusions: Looking at previous studies, it was observed that the quality of online health information was historically inadequate. Likewise, in our study on YouTube, we found that the quality of flatfoot and pes planus information was poor to moderate.
advertising
