Gabarron Elia, Fernandez-Luque Luis, Armayones Manuel, Lau Annie Ys
NST-Norwegian Centre for Integrated Care and Telemedicine, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
Interact J Med Res. 2013 Feb 28;2(1):e6. doi: 10.2196/ijmr.2465.
Recent publications on YouTube have advocated its potential for patient education. However, a reliable description of what could be considered quality information for patient education on YouTube is missing.
To identify topics associated with the concept of quality information for patient education on YouTube in the scientific literature.
A literature review was performed in MEDLINE, ISI Web of Knowledge, Scopus, and PsychINFO. Abstract selection was first conducted by two independent reviewers; discrepancies were discussed in a second abstract review with two additional independent reviewers. Full text of selected papers were analyzed looking for concepts, definitions, and topics used by its authors that focused on the quality of information on YouTube for patient education.
In total, 456 abstracts were extracted and 13 papers meeting eligibility criteria were analyzed. Concepts identified related to quality of information for patient education are categorized as expert-driven, popularity-driven, or heuristic-driven measures. These include (in descending order): (1) quality of content in 10/13 (77%), (2) view count in 9/13 (69%), (3) health professional opinion in 8/13 (62%), (4) adequate length or duration in 6/13 (46%), (5) public ratings in 5/13 (39%), (6) adequate title, tags, and description in 5/13 (39%), (7) good description or a comprehensive narrative in 4/13 (31%), (8) evidence-based practices included in video in 4/13 (31%), (9) suitability as a teaching tool in 4/13 (31%), (10) technical quality in 4/13 (31%), (11) credentials provided in video in 4/13 (31%), (12) enough amount of content to identify its objective in 3/13 (23%), and (13) viewership share in 2/13 (15%).
Our review confirms that the current topics linked to quality of information for patient education on YouTube are unclear and not standardized. Although expert-driven, popularity-driven, or heuristic-driven measures are used as proxies to estimate the quality of video information, caution should be applied when using YouTube for health promotion and patient educational material.
YouTube 上近期的出版物提倡其在患者教育方面的潜力。然而，对于 YouTube 上可被视为高质量患者教育信息的可靠描述却付诸阙如。
在科学文献中识别与 YouTube 上高质量患者教育信息概念相关的主题。
在 MEDLINE、ISI 科学网、Scopus 和 PsychINFO 中进行文献综述。首先由两名独立评审员进行摘要筛选；在第二轮摘要评审中与另外两名独立评审员讨论差异。对选定论文的全文进行分析，寻找作者使用的与 YouTube 上患者教育信息质量相关的概念、定义和主题。
共提取 456 篇摘要，分析了 13 篇符合入选标准的论文。确定的与患者教育信息质量相关的概念分为专家驱动、人气驱动或启发式驱动的衡量标准。这些标准（按降序排列）包括：（1）13 篇中有 10 篇（77%）内容质量，（2）13 篇中有 9 篇（69%）观看次数，（3）13 篇中有 8 篇（62%）卫生专业人员意见，（4）13 篇中有 6 篇（46%）足够的长度或时长，（5）13 篇中有 5 篇（39%）公众评级，（6）13 篇中有 5篇（39%）合适的标题、标签和描述，（7）13 篇中有 4 篇（31%）良好的描述或全面的叙述，（8）13 篇中有 4 篇（31%）视频中包含的循证实践，（9）13 篇中有 4 篇（31%）作为教学工具的适用性，（10）13 篇中有 4 篇（31%）技术质量，（11）13 篇中有 4 篇（31%）视频中提供的资质证明，（12）13 篇中有 3 篇（23%）足够的内容量以明确其目标，以及（13）13 篇中有 2 篇（15%）观众份额。
我们的综述证实，目前与 YouTube 上患者教育信息质量相关的主题不明确且未标准化。尽管专家驱动、人气驱动或启发式驱动的衡量标准被用作估计视频信息质量的代理指标，但在将 YouTube 用于健康促进和患者教育材料时应谨慎。
