Evaluating the Effect of Video Source and Other Video Characteristics on the Quality, Reliability, Actionability, and Understandability of Videos on Acromioclavicular Joint Repair.

PURPOSE

This study aims to evaluate video quality, reliability, actionability, and understandability differences based on length, popularity, and source credentials (physician versus non-physician). The hypothesis suggests that current videos are of low quality and limited usefulness to patients, highlighting significant disparities based on the credentials of the video source.

METHODS

The phrase "acromioclavicular joint separation" was searched on YouTube. The first 100 videos that populated were selected. Of those 100, 45 were excluded based on pre-existing criteria. Two reviewers watched and graded the included videos using four established, additive algorithmic grading scales. Grades for all included videos were analyzed using R software version 4.2.3.

RESULTS

The mean Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) score was 2.32 (standard deviation (SD) = 0.74), with patient-made videos having a significantly lower reliability score (p = 0.008). The mean Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) understandability and actionability scores were 59.78% (SD = 15.28%) and 67.55% (SD = 15.28%) respectively. PEMAT actionability scores were positively correlated to views (p = 0.002). The average DISCERN score was 2.51 (SD = 0.70); longer videos were correlated with higher DISCERN scores (p = 0.047).

CONCLUSION

Analysis indicated that there were significant differences in reliability and understandability between video source types. Additionally, there was no correlation between quality and/or reliability and views, indicating that the YouTube algorithm is not an effective indicator of the quality of videos.