YouTube as a source of information on breast cancer in the Arab world

Abstract

BackgroundPatients are increasingly using YouTube™ as a source of information on Breast cancer, the most frequent cancer among women. Educating patients is highly important to reduce mortality rates. This study aims to evaluate, for the rst time, Breast Cancer Videos on YouTube™ in the Arab world that hosts their highest use. MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, the most viewed 60 videos were evaluated for global quality (GQS score), reliability (modi ed DISCERN score), usefulness (content-speci c score), and misleading claims. Videos' power index, popularity, duration, and viewers' interaction were assessed. Sources (professional/ nonprofessional) and speakers (physician/ non-physician) were categorized. ResultsThe median Global Quality (3/5), Reliability (2/5), and Usefulness scores (4/11) were overall low. Out of all videos, the speaker was a physician in 32% and misleading information was found in 42%. Although professional source videos (45%) were less viewed, they were less misleading, of higher quality, reliability, and usefulness than non-professional source videos (55%). Source categories did not affect viewers' interaction, video power index, nor duration. While Symptoms (55%) were discussed the most, genetic counseling (13%) and prevention (20%) were scarcely mentioned; professionals were more likely to highlight early diagnosis importance. ConclusionsYouTube™ is poorly informational on breast cancer and may be inaccurate in the Arab world where highly used. Although professional uploaders' videos tend to be more adequate, they are of lower quantity and popularity. Governments and physicians should upload more intelligibly informational videos, guide the public for accurate sources, and encourage regulations.

Radionuclide Therapy Videos on YouTube as An Educational Material: Has the COVID-19 Pandemic Changed the Quality, Usefulness, and Interaction Features

“…While better quality content is expected to be more “popular” and more “impactful,” proven data says the opposite. The general trend in literature data is less viewing of high-scoring videos, similar to our results [ 16 , 17 , 19 – 22 , 24 , 29 , 30 , 33 , 40 ]. We did not find any study directly comparing the popularity of educational and personal videos.…”

“…Also, we could not find a significant difference between educational and personal videos in terms of average duration, number of views, and number of comments. However, in the available literature, it has been reported that educational videos are generally of higher quality and almost always lower quality videos are more popular [ 16 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 24 , 30 , 36 , 40 ]. The only exception we could find is Duran et al‘s study on prostate cancer videos, in which no significant relationship was found between the quality markers (JAMA and GQS scores) and likes, comments, views, and VPI [ 33 ].…”

“…Topics of cancer-related videos that are studied are colorectal, bladder, prostate, pancreatic, oral, skin, cervical, larynx, thyroid, anal, breast, gynecological, and testicular cancer [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34]. Besides these, glioblastoma treatment, cancer-related pain management, pediatric cancer clinical Fig.…”

Digital Trends, Digital Literacy, and E-Health Engagement Predictors of Breast and Colorectal Cancer Survivors: A Population-Based Cross-Sectional Survey

“…Using the Arabic Internet for cancer-related information can be problematic because much of it is unaccredited or unvalidated by specialists [ 7 , 8 ]. Health information is increasingly being searched for on mobile devices and social media [ 9 ] Misinformation resulting from patients’ increased uploading of cancer data to social media, blogs, and networks raises doubts about the accuracy of online information [ 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 ]. The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the flow of chronic illness information online, including cancer.…”

“…The infodemic has resulted in a lot of true, false, and mixed information on the Internet. Non-evidence-based, untrustworthy, erroneous, deceptive, or misleading data might make information acquisition more challenging [ 7 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ]. The vast amount of cancer information available online can be overwhelming, confusing, and disturbing for some patients, especially if they are unable to filter and digest it [ 16 , 17 , 18 ].…”