2021
DOI: 10.1097/mph.0000000000002086
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Quality and Reliability of YouTube Videos on Sickle Cell Disease

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
1
1

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(2 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…For the Global Quality Score, slightly more than 50% received a 3, and slightly more than 30% received a 4, which means the videos provided some information about the disease that could be useful for patients, caregivers, and the overall community. The scores in this study are slightly higher than those in another study examining SCD information in 66 videos posted on YouTube (Om et al, 2021): where the DISCERN score was 1.79; the GQS score was 2.67; and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark score was 1.26.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 77%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For the Global Quality Score, slightly more than 50% received a 3, and slightly more than 30% received a 4, which means the videos provided some information about the disease that could be useful for patients, caregivers, and the overall community. The scores in this study are slightly higher than those in another study examining SCD information in 66 videos posted on YouTube (Om et al, 2021): where the DISCERN score was 1.79; the GQS score was 2.67; and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark score was 1.26.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 77%
“…Americans post videos to provide information about a range of illnesses (Madathil et al, 2015). Om, Mathew, and Nawaz (2021) examined sickle cell videos on YouTube using three different scales and found their quality relatively low. A recent study by Slick et al (2023) found that more than half of the sickle cell medical information on the analysed social media sites was inaccurate.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%