Richardson Michelle A, Park Won, Bernstein David N, Mesfin Addisu
University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA.
Harvard Combined Orthopaedic Residency Program, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Int J Spine Surg. 2022 Apr;16(2):278-282. doi: 10.14444/8215.
Given the high volume of user traffic to YouTube, it is important that the medical information disseminated on this platform is of high quality. Unfortunately, previous studies have demonstrated this to not be the case. We aimed to evaluate the quality and educational content of YouTube videos concerning spine tumors using 2 previously validated assessment tools.
The first 50 videos returned by the keyword search "spine tumor" were included in the study. The benchmark criteria (range: 0-4) were used to assess video reliability, whereas the Global Quality Score (GQS) (range: 0-5) was used to determine educational quality and content.
Videos were primarily authored by academic medical groups (80%), while content was primarily related to disease-specific information (44%) or the patient experience (24%). Surgical treatment options and nonsurgical management were discussed in 66% and 50% of all videos, respectively. Sixty percent of videos reported benefits of treatment, while 44% reported potential risks or complications. The average score and GQS were 3.1 ± 0.27 (range: 3-4) and 2.6 ± 1.3 (range: 1-5), respectively. Multivariate linear regression analyses revealed that video duration (β = 0.00697, = 0.04) and number of views (β = 0.000018, = 0.001) were positively associated with score. Video duration and number of dislikes were associated with higher GQS (β = 0.041, = 0.025) and lower GQS (β = -0.189, = 0.04), respectively. Lastly, number of days since upload was associated with lower Video Power Index (β = -0.003, = 0.003).
The reliability, quality, and educational content of YouTube videos were poor to suboptimal. Physicians should be wary of the education provided by YouTube on spine tumors and guide patients in seeking out additional sources of information.
YouTube videos are commonly viewed by patients seeking health information on spine tumors. While certain videos may provide useful information, the absence of an editorial process allows videos with poor reliability and low quality to be uploaded. We believe these findings may be useful to physicians seeking ways to better guide their patients with the most appropriate educational tools throughout their disease management.
鉴于YouTube的用户流量巨大,在该平台上传播的医学信息具有高质量至关重要。不幸的是,先前的研究表明实际情况并非如此。我们旨在使用两种先前经过验证的评估工具,评估YouTube上有关脊柱肿瘤的视频的质量和教育内容。
通过关键词搜索“脊柱肿瘤”返回的前50个视频被纳入研究。使用基准标准(范围:0 - 4)评估视频的可靠性,而使用全球质量评分(GQS)(范围:0 - 5)来确定教育质量和内容。
视频主要由学术医学团体创作(80%),而内容主要与疾病特定信息(44%)或患者体验(24%)相关。在所有视频中,分别有66%和50%讨论了手术治疗选择和非手术管理。60%的视频报告了治疗的益处,而44%报告了潜在风险或并发症。平均视频功率指数(Video Power Index)得分和GQS分别为3.1±0.27(范围:3 - 4)和2.6±1.3(范围:1 - 5)。多变量线性回归分析显示,视频时长(β = 0.00697,P = 0.04)和观看次数(β = 0.000018,P = 0.001)与视频功率指数得分呈正相关。视频时长和不喜欢的次数分别与较高的GQS(β = 0.041,P = 0.025)和较低的GQS(β = -0.189,P = 0.04)相关。最后,上传后的天数与较低的视频功率指数相关(β = -0.003,P = 0.003)。
YouTube视频的可靠性、质量和教育内容较差至次优。医生应警惕YouTube提供的有关脊柱肿瘤的教育内容,并指导患者寻找其他信息来源。
寻求脊柱肿瘤健康信息的患者通常会观看YouTube视频。虽然某些视频可能提供有用信息,但缺乏编辑流程使得可靠性差和质量低的视频得以上传。我们认为这些发现可能对寻求在整个疾病管理过程中用最合适的教育工具更好地指导患者的医生有用。