Drozd Brandy, Couvillon Emily, Suarez Andrea
McGovern Medical School of UTHealth Houston, Houston, TX, United States.
School of Medicine, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, United States.
JMIR Med Educ. 2018 Feb 12;4(1):e3. doi: 10.2196/mededu.8527.
Online medical education has relevance to public health literacy and physician efficacy, yet it requires a certain standard of reliability. While the internet has the potential to be a viable medical education tool, the viewer must be able to discern which information is reliable.
Our aim was to perform a literature review to determine and compare the various methods used when analyzing YouTube videos for patient education efficacy, information accuracy, and quality.
In November 2016, a comprehensive search within PubMed and Embase resulted in 37 included studies.
The review revealed that each video evaluation study first established search terms, exclusion criteria, and methods to analyze the videos in a consistent manner. The majority of the evaluators devised a scoring system, but variations were innumerable within each study's methods.
In comparing the 37 studies, we found that overall, common steps were taken to evaluate the content. However, a concrete set of methods did not exist. This is notable since many patients turn to the internet for medical information yet lack the tools to evaluate the advice being given. There was, however, a common aim of discovering what health-related content the public is accessing, and how credible that material is.
在线医学教育与公众健康素养和医生效能相关，但它需要一定的可靠性标准。虽然互联网有潜力成为一种可行的医学教育工具，但观众必须能够辨别哪些信息是可靠的。
我们的目的是进行一项文献综述，以确定和比较在分析YouTube视频的患者教育效果、信息准确性和质量时所使用的各种方法。
2016年11月，在PubMed和Embase中进行全面检索，得到37项纳入研究。
该综述表明，每项视频评估研究首先都确定了检索词、排除标准以及以一致方式分析视频的方法。大多数评估者设计了一个评分系统，但每项研究的方法中存在无数差异。
在比较这37项研究时，我们发现总体而言，评估内容时采取了一些共同步骤。然而，不存在一套具体的方法。这一点值得注意，因为许多患者通过互联网获取医学信息，但缺乏评估所提供建议的工具。不过，有一个共同目标是发现公众正在获取哪些与健康相关的内容，以及这些内容的可信度如何。
