DOI 10.1016/j.ijcard.2024.132591
Trusting the tube? YouTube®'s role in pacemaker patient and physician education.
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE
YouTube®, attracts billions of monthly viewers, including those seeking health-related content. However, the quality standards of information are highly variable. The study aimed to evaluate the educational merit of YouTube® concerning pacemakers, focusing on quality and reliability for educating both patients and physicians.
METHODS
The term "pacemaker" was searched on YouTube®. Following the application of exclusion criteria based on video language, duration, and minimum view count, a total of 71 videos were analyzed. Quality was assessed using the Global Quality Score (GQS), while reliability was evaluated using the modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) score. Data and metrics available regarding the channel and the specific video were obtained. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was employed to assess data normality, and the Mann-Whitney U test was utilized to determine statistical significance.
RESULTS
Youtube videos on cardiac pacemakers proved to be of moderate quality, with an average GQS score of 3.10, and of moderate reliability, indicated by a mean mDISCERN score of 3.08. Higher scores were reported for videos of more than five minute duration, the ones that were targeted at physicians, and the videos with higher view ratios. The presence of a board-certified MD yielded statistically greater mean GQS, but not mDISCERN score. No statistical difference was observed based on the number of likes.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, while YouTube® offers significant education opportunities, there is a clear need for enhanced oversight and quality control. Healthcare providers should guide patients towards valid resources and consider collaborating with platforms to develop content standards.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.