Evaluation of the usage of YouTube videos about Histology and Embryology as an educational material

Abstract

The use of YouTube videos for educational purposes has been increasingly popular.The quality and accuracy of the information level of these videos should be checked by expert trainers. This study aims to evaluate the content, quality and functionality of YouTube videos on Histology and Embryology and to measure their educational usefulness. In the study, searches were performed using the keywords "Histology" and "Embryology" in the YouTube search tab. Quality and content were evaluated using the Video Power Index (VPI), modified DISCERN scale, JAMA and the Global Quality Scale (GQS). Videos were categorized by educational usefulness. SPSS software was used for statistical analysis. A statistically significant high correlation was observed between modified DISCERN scores and JAMA scores (r = 0.757, p < 0.001) and between modified DISCERN scores and GQS scores (r = 0.743, p < 0.001). A statistically significant high correlation was also determined between JAMA and GQS scores (r = 0.632, p < 0.001). GQS scores were weakly, negatively and significantly correlated with the number of comments (r = −0.302, p < 0.05) and dislikes (r = −0.325, p < 0.05).Based on GQS, the useful and non-useful videos differed significantly in terms of views, likes, dislikes, comments counts and days since upload (p < 0.05). Modified DISCERN and JAMA scores also differed significantly between the useful and nonuseful videos (p < 0.001). Educational videos published for Histology and Embryology education on the internet will be more beneficial if they are prepared by expert educators from reliable information sources, by the current literature, and by scoring systems such as DISCERN, JAMA and GQS.

Are YouTube videos about skull bone anatomy useful for students?

“…On the basis of our study, we think that YouTube videos about anatomy are of medium quality. Similarly, Cetinavci et al (2022) found that histology-embryology YouTube videos were of moderate quality. We also found that videos with excellent TCSs had significantly higher GQS scores (p < 0.001).…”

“…In our study, the modified DISCERN and JAMA scores were statistically significantly higher for videos that were useful than for those that were not useful. Similarly, Cetinavci et al (2022) analyzed 50 videos and found that the modified DISCERN and JAMA scores were significantly higher for the useful ones. Raikos and Waidyasekara (2014) suggested on the basis of Anatomical Content Scores that YouTube videos on heart anatomy were inadequate.…”

“…Viewers' interactions were calculated using the view rate (number of views/number of days after uploading × 100%). The educational usefulness of the videos was categorized using the GQS, with GQS > 3 qualifying as “useful” and GQS ≤ 3 as “not useful” (Cetinavci et al, 2022; Van den Eynde et al, 2019). We measured the educational content of the videos using the TCS, which consists of five criteria related to the definition of the skull and its six component bones ( os frontale , os arietale , os occipitale , os temporale , os sphenoidale , and os ethmoidale ) (Table 1).…”

TikTok and Bilibili as sources of information on Helicobacter pylori in China: A content and quality analysis

“…A modified DISCERN score (Quality Criteria for Consumer Health Information) was used to analyze the reliability and quality of the videos, 17,18 which consisted of five questions, and 1 point was given for every Yes and 0 points for every No. Specifically, five criteria were used: (1) the video was clear, concise, and understandable; (2) the sources of utilized information were reliable; (3) the presented information was balanced and unbiased; (4) additional sources of information were listed for patient reference; and (5) areas of uncertainty/controversy were mentioned 19 …”

“…Specifically, five criteria were used: (1) the video was clear, concise, and understandable; (2) the sources of utilized information were reliable; (3) the presented information was balanced and unbiased; (4) additional sources of information were listed for patient reference; and (5) areas of uncertainty/controversy were mentioned. 19…”