Advertisement
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
Abstract
Background: The aim of this study is 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 50000 views or more, longer than 45 seconds, containing information about flatfoot and pes planus disease were selected. DISCERN, JAMA scoring, daily average views, number of likes, 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 2047. Mean video presentation time was 8 minutes 50 seconds. The mean JAMA score was 2/4 and the mean DISCERN score was 38.16/75. According to the DISCERN score according to the professions, the video quality was moderate in doctors (41.44±12.99), moderate in physiotherapists (41.91±9.04), poor in coaches (32.78±7.87), poor in patients (34.50±5.32) and weak in others (34.89±14.00). According to the Spearman correlation between DISCERN score and mean daily viewing significant relationships were found in the doctors group p:0.0102 and the others group p:0.0033, however, no significant relationships were observed in the physiotherapists group p:0.1073, the flatfoot patients group p:0.5363 and the coaches group p:0.9111. There were significant relationships between like and comment counts in all groups (doctors p:0.0088, coaches p:0.0069, physiotherapists p:0.0007, others p:0.0018, patients p:0.0066).
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.
