Gynecologie, obstetrique, fertilite & senologie · 2026
[Quality and reliability of YouTube videos on induction of labour: a descriptive crosssectional study].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
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.
Vignozzi Elodie, Tellier Faustine, Eckman-Lacroix Astrid, Nallet Camille, Bassi Romaine, Lucot-Royer Louise, Mottet Nicolas, Lallemant Marine
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To assess the quality and reliability of French-language YouTube videos on induction of labour, and to investigate whether their quality is related to their popularity.
METHODS: Descriptive cross-sectional study conducted from May to August 2023. The first 30 videos returned for each of four non-technical keywords were assessed independently and blindly by two reviewers using the DISCERN score (range 16-80), the primary outcome. Popularity was assessed by the number of views and the Video Power Index (VPI).
RESULTS: Of the 120 videos identified, 17% (n = 20) were included. A healthcare professional appeared in 75% of the videos (n = 15). The median DISCERN score was 54.3 [47.3-59.8]: 65% of the videos (n = 13) were of good or excellent quality and 20% (n = 4) of poor quality. Inter-rater reliability was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.92). Sources and the date of the information were rarely mentioned. The DISCERN score was correlated neither with the number of views (p = 0.97) nor with the VPI (p = 0.83). Good-quality videos more often described the indications for induction (92% vs 43%; p = 0.03).
CONCLUSION: These videos are scarce and of heterogeneous quality, and their popularity does not reflect their quality. Healthcare professionals should direct patients towards identified content, all the more so as the rise of artificial intelligence reinforces the need for certified sources.
METHODS: Descriptive cross-sectional study conducted from May to August 2023. The first 30 videos returned for each of four non-technical keywords were assessed independently and blindly by two reviewers using the DISCERN score (range 16-80), the primary outcome. Popularity was assessed by the number of views and the Video Power Index (VPI).
RESULTS: Of the 120 videos identified, 17% (n = 20) were included. A healthcare professional appeared in 75% of the videos (n = 15). The median DISCERN score was 54.3 [47.3-59.8]: 65% of the videos (n = 13) were of good or excellent quality and 20% (n = 4) of poor quality. Inter-rater reliability was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.92). Sources and the date of the information were rarely mentioned. The DISCERN score was correlated neither with the number of views (p = 0.97) nor with the VPI (p = 0.83). Good-quality videos more often described the indications for induction (92% vs 43%; p = 0.03).
CONCLUSION: These videos are scarce and of heterogeneous quality, and their popularity does not reflect their quality. Healthcare professionals should direct patients towards identified content, all the more so as the rise of artificial intelligence reinforces the need for certified sources.