Understandability and Actionability of Available Video Information on YouTube Regarding Hemophilia: A Cross-Sectional Study

Abstract

IntroductionWith the advent of revolutionary information technology, most general medical information can be accessed by the community at large. However, the factual nature of information, its understandability, and actionability of diseases like Hemophilia are unknown to the general population. Hence the present study has been envisaged to assess the understandability and actionability of available video information on YouTube about Hemophilia. MethodsA cross-sectional study was performed using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Audiovisual materials (PEMAT-AV) to assess the understandability and actionability of 50 videos shown by order of relevance utilizing three independent assessors. An online google survey was prepared using the PEMAT questionnaire as a basis and results were recorded and saved as a Microsoft Excel sheet for analysis. Data was analyzed using either Microsoft Excel or an online calculator as the case may be. ResultsA total of 50 short videos on Hemophilia were assessed by three independent assessors using PEMAT. The data so obtained was rechecked by an independent reviewer before data analysis. Three videos were excluded due to non-English language while only two videos out of 50 showed 100% average understandability and actionability. Average understandability and actionability scores range between 34 to 100 percent and 11.1 to 100 percent, respectively. Most videos have higher average understandability than actionability (P value=0.003). ConclusionOur study shows there are only a few high-quality short videos available as audio-visual patient education materials on YouTube about Hemophilia. There is a great need to develop content that is beneficial to patients as patient educational material.

Evaluating the Quality, Readability, and Activity of Online Information on Brain Arteriovenous Malformations

“…The PEMAT understandability showed higher scores than the PEMAT actionability. This trend of superior understandability scores has been repeated across multiple studies regarding other health topics [ 20 , 30 , 31 ]. The average understandability score was 86.6%, while the average actionability score was 54.6%.…”

“…These results indicate a wide gap between the frequency of strategies for increasing understandability and those for increasing actionability. There is anecdotal evidence that information published more recently implements more strategies for actionability, but this study was unable to elucidate that trend given the limited sample size [ 20 ].…”

“…The questions are split into an understandability section, designed to assess if consumers of various backgrounds can understand the key concepts, and an actionability section, designed to assess how much consumers of various backgrounds are able to do with the information and tools provided [ 18 ]. Previous studies have used a nonempirical cutoff of 70%, where scores below would be considered poorly actionable and poorly understandable [ 19 , 20 ].…”

“…And (3), what is the overall rating of the publication? Furthermore, websites were given one of the five grades: 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 (15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26) based on overall scores [14].…”

Assessment of Understandability and Actionability of YouTube Videos on Hemolytic Disease of the Newborn

“…There seems to be an evolution of content providers in terms of understandability and actionability as may be evidenced by the presence of lower scores in the older videos than in the newer videos and studies. There are no studies on the assessment of understandability and actionability of YouTube videos on HDN, however, there are many studies on other diseases/conditions like online cardiovascular disease risk calculators [ 20 ], type 2 diabetic risk calculators [ 21 ], diabetes mellitus [ 22 ], laryngectomy [ 23 ], clubfoot [ 24 ], chest pain in children [ 25 ], etc., including one more similar study by author on Hemophilia [ 26 ]. Most studies had similar good understandability scores, but poor actionability scores.…”