A content analysis of the reliability and quality of Youtube videos as a source of information on health-related post-COVID pain

Abstract

Background The use of the internet as a source of information has increased during the pandemic, and YouTube has become an increasingly important source of information on Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In the long COVID picture, which occurs when symptoms related to COVID-19 last longer than 1 month, pain involving the musculoskeletal system affects the quality of life quite negatively. The aim of this study was to investigate the informational value and quality of YouTube videos related to post-COVID pain. Methods In this study, 180 videos were listed using the search terms “pain after COVID,” “post-COVID pain,” and “long COVID and pain”(15 April 2022). Videos were classified according to video parameters and content analysis. Quality, reliability and accuracy of the videos were determined with the Global Quality Score (GQS), the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) Benchmark Criteria and the Modified DISCERN Questionnaire, respectively. Results One hundred videos that met the inclusion criteria were included in the assessment. Of these videos, 74 were found to be of low quality, 14 of moderate quality, and 12 of high quality; 21% contained insufficient data, 73% contained partially sufficient data, and 6% contained completely sufficient data. Videos uploaded by academic sources (66.7%) and physicians (12.5%) made up the majority of the high-quality group. A statistically significant correlation was found between the source of upload and number of views (p = 0.014), likes (p = 0.030), comments (p = 0.007), and video duration (p = 0.004). Video duration was found to have a poor positive correlation with GQS (r = 0.500), JAMA (r = 0.528), and modified DISCERN (r = 0.470) scores (p < 0.001). Conclusion The findings of this study revealed that the majority of YouTube videos on post-COVID pain had low quality and partially sufficient data. High-quality videos were found to have longer durations and were uploaded by academic sources and physicians. The fact that only videos with English content at a certain time can be counted among the limitations. For patients suffering from post-COVID pain whose access to healthcare services was interrupted during the COVID pandemic, YouTube can be considered as an alternative source as well as a means of telerehabilitation. It can be argued that higher quality videos created by healthcare professionals could aid in patient education in the future.

A Comprehensive Assessment of Cleft Lip and Palate Websites and Patient Education Information

“…15 This may reflect increasing demand and Internet usage over time. [6][7][8][9] This study found that the majority of centers (79.7%) were updated in the year of 2022. The remaining websites were updated recently, with the latest date listed as 2019.…”

“…6,7 This has been further impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, where social media and Internet search engines have been further utilized to seek health information. 8,9 Pediatric craniofacial anomalies are deformities that affect head and facial bones. 10 Cleft lip and palate occurs in nearly 1 in 600 live births.…”

YouTube/ Bilibili/ TikTok Videos as Sources of Medical Information on Laryngeal Carcinoma: Cross-Sectional Content Analysis Study

“…In recent decades, digital video, as an important carrier of information, has been widely used in patients' education. In otorhinolaryngology, YouTube and/or TikTok content has been investigated for the educational value of videos about cholesteatoma [9], pediatric tonsillectomy [10], middle ear ventilation tubes [10], rhinoplasty [12], tinnitus [13], and thyroid cancer [4,14,15]. Yet, the quality evaluation of videos related to laryngeal cancer remains absent.…”

Analyzing the Quality, Reliability, and Educational Value of ACL Rehabilitation Exercises on TikTok: A Cross-Sectional Study

“…Although initially designed as a tool for written information, DISCERN has been applied as a scoring test for grading the quality of videos in previous research. 2,6,34,36 DISCERN scores are interpreted as excellent (63-75), good (51-62), fair (39-50), poor (27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38), and very poor (16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26).…”