How Informative Is YouTube Regarding Feeding in Infants with Cleft Lip and Palate?

Abstract

Objective To assess the characteristics of popular videos on YouTube about the feeding of infants with cleft lip and palate (CLP) and analyze the adequacy of information provided by them. Design A cross-sectional design was used. Methods YouTube was systematically searched for consecutive relevant videos about the feeding of infants with CLP, using predefined keyword combinations, without any limitations on language or duration. Scrutiny of the top 50 videos for each keyword combination was performed and a self-designed data-extraction sheet was used. A content adequacy index was developed by an expert group, and used to assess content adequacy, classifying it into categories from excellent to poor. Results From an initial retrieval of 200 videos, 42 were included in the final assessment. The videos originated from nine different countries, with more than half coming from the USA and in English. Five of the videos came from the channel of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association. Content adequacy analysis showed that no video could be classified as excellent, while 33.3% were classified as optimal, 21.4% as suboptimal and 45.2% as poor. Conclusions The content adequacy of the majority of videos on YouTube, relating to the feeding of infants with CLP was inadequate, with only one third of them achieving optimal content adequacy. Efforts must be made to develop informative and standardized videos for social media and video-sharing platforms, perhaps through professional associations to ensure that families with an infant with CLP receive appropriate information.

YouTube™ as a source of parents' information for craniosynostosis

“…27 Despite the beneficial effect of accurate information covering the decision-making process and psychological needs of Several studies evaluated YouTube™ as a source of information on craniofacial conditions for either patients or healthcare professionals. 26,29,30,31 were not sufficient for transferring high-quality information to families. 31 In the present study, according to content scores, 34% of included videos were classified as low-content, 60.6% were classified as moderate-content, and only 5.3% were classified as high-content.…”

“…39 However, it has been stated that language restriction is also an essential shortcoming in most studies investigating the quality of healthcare information. 30 Researchers might choose the English language regarding their language proficiency. Future studies that include researchers who are native speakers proficient in the most popular languages after the English language could be valuable.…”

“…Several studies evaluated YouTube™ as a source of information on craniofacial conditions for either patients or healthcare professionals 26,29,30,31 . Korkmaz and Buyuk 29 reported that YouTube™ was not an adequate source of information on the treatment of cleft lip and palate.…”

“…Spoyalo et al 26 reported that YouTube™ videos only partially met the informational needs of parents of children with non‐syndromic cleft lip and palate. Srivastav et al 30 evaluated videos on YouTube™ about feeding infants with cleft lip and palate and reported that 65.5% of included videos were classified as poor and suboptimal content. Another study showed that YouTube™ videos related to transcranial procedures for managing craniosynostosis were not sufficient for transferring high‐quality information to families 31 .…”

“…A systematic review has reported that one of the most preferred inclusion criteria for healthcare information in videos is the English language 39 . However, it has been stated that language restriction is also an essential shortcoming in most studies investigating the quality of healthcare information 30 . Researchers might choose the English language regarding their language proficiency.…”