Identifying Measures Used for Assessing Quality of YouTube Videos with Patient Health Information: A Review of Current Literature

Background Recent publications on YouTube have advocated its potential for patient education. However, a reliable description of what could be considered quality information for patient education on YouTube is missing. Objective To identify topics associated with the concept of quality information for patient education on YouTube in the scientific literature. Methods A literature review was performed in MEDLINE, ISI Web of Knowledge, Scopus, and PsychINFO. Abstract selection was first conducted by two independent reviewers; discrepancies were discussed in a second abstract review with two additional independent reviewers. Full text of selected papers were analyzed looking for concepts, definitions, and topics used by its authors that focused on the quality of information on YouTube for patient education. Results In total, 456 abstracts were extracted and 13 papers meeting eligibility criteria were analyzed. Concepts identified related to quality of information for patient education are categorized as expert-driven, popularity-driven, or heuristic-driven measures. These include (in descending order): (1) quality of content in 10/13 (77%), (2) view count in 9/13 (69%), (3) health professional opinion in 8/13 (62%), (4) adequate length or duration in 6/13 (46%), (5) public ratings in 5/13 (39%), (6) adequate title, tags, and description in 5/13 (39%), (7) good description or a comprehensive narrative in 4/13 (31%), (8) evidence-based practices included in video in 4/13 (31%), (9) suitability as a teaching tool in 4/13 (31%), (10) technical quality in 4/13 (31%), (11) credentials provided in video in 4/13 (31%), (12) enough amount of content to identify its objective in 3/13 (23%), and (13) viewership share in 2/13 (15%). Conclusions Our review confirms that the current topics linked to quality of information for patient education on YouTube are unclear and not standardized. Although expert-driven, popularity-driven, or heuristic-driven measures are used as proxies to estimate the quality of video information, caution should be applied when using YouTube for health promotion and patient educational material.

[1]  John Renner,et al.  Criteria for assessing the quality of health information on the Internet. , 1997, American journal of public health.

[2]  E Coiera,et al.  How Online Crowds Influence the Way Individual Consumers Answer Health Questions , 2011, Applied Clinical Informatics.

[3]  Ambarish Pandey,et al.  YouTube as a source of information on kidney stone disease. , 2011, Urology.

[4]  Miriam J. Metzger,et al.  Social and Heuristic Approaches to Credibility Evaluation Online , 2010 .

[5]  Aaron Smith,et al.  Social Media & Mobile Internet Use among Teens and Young Adults. Millennials. , 2010 .

[6]  E. Augustson,et al.  Cancer Survivorship in the Age of YouTube and Social Media: A Narrative Analysis , 2011, Journal of medical Internet research.

[7]  J. Powell,et al.  Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a systematic review. , 2002, JAMA.

[8]  C. Backinger,et al.  YouTube as a source of quitting smoking information , 2010, Tobacco Control.

[9]  A. Pandey,et al.  YouTube as a source of information on the H1N1 influenza pandemic. , 2010, American journal of preventive medicine.

[10]  E. Coiera,et al.  Impact of Web Searching and Social Feedback on Consumer Decision Making: A Prospective Online Experiment , 2008, Journal of medical Internet research.

[11]  Yan Tian.  Organ Donation on Web 2.0: Content and Audience Analysis of Organ Donation Videos on YouTube , 2010, Health communication.

[12]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration , 2009, Annals of Internal Medicine [serial online].

[13]  Flavio Figueiredo,et al.  On the Quality of Information for Web 2.0 Services , 2010, IEEE Internet Computing.

[14]  K. Murugiah,et al.  YouTube as a source of information on cardiopulmonary resuscitation. , 2011, Resuscitation.

[15]  Sarah Cruchet,et al.  Results of the 10th HON Survey on Health and Medical Internet Use , 2011, MIE.

[16]  S. Crain,et al.  Misleading Health-Related Information Promoted Through Video-Based Social Media: Anorexia on YouTube , 2013, Journal of medical Internet research.

[17]  J. Seigne,et al.  YouTube as source of prostate cancer information. , 2010, Urology.

[18]  Robert P. Dellavalle,et al.  Online videos to promote sun safety: results of a contest , 2011, Dermatology reports.

[19]  S. Sachdeva.  Ulcerated cutaneous epithelioid hemangioendothelioma in an 8-month old infant , 2011, Dermatology reports.

[20]  Luis Fernandez-Luque,et al.  eSalud y vídeos online para la promoción de la salud , 2012 .

[21]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[22]  E. Bernstam,et al.  Accuracy and self correction of information received from an internet breast cancer list: content analysis , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[23]  Nick Barrowman,et al.  YouTube Videos as a Teaching Tool and Patient Resource for Infantile Spasms , 2011, Journal of child neurology.

[24]  Casimir A. Kulikowski,et al.  The dangerous decade , 2012, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[25]  Dianne Gregory,et al.  Descriptive analysis of YouTube music therapy videos. , 2011, Journal of music therapy.

[26]  Clement Chau,et al.  YouTube as a participatory culture. , 2010, New directions for youth development.

[27]  Luis Fernandez-Luque,et al.  HealthTrust: A Social Network Approach for Retrieving Online Health Videos , 2012, Journal of medical Internet research.

[28]  H. Goldman,et al.  Social networks lack useful content for incontinence. , 2011, Urology.

[29]  L. Fernández-Luque,et al.  Social Media in Health — What are the Safety Concerns for Health Consumers? , 2012, Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia.

[30]  L. Wallace,et al.  Human papillomavirus vaccination coverage on YouTube. , 2008, American journal of preventive medicine.

[31]  Murray Gell-Mann,et al.  The quality of information , 1997, ACM '97.

[32]  Xiaoli Nan,et al.  When Vaccines Go Viral: An Analysis of HPV Vaccine Coverage on YouTube , 2012, Health communication.

[33]  Célia Boyer,et al.  Improving the Transparency of Health Information Found on the Internet Through the Honcode: a Comparative Study , 2011, MIE.

[34]  Flavio Figueiredo,et al.  Evidence of quality of textual features on the web 2.0 , 2009, CIKM.

[35]  P. Elkin,et al.  The Role of Social Media for Patients and Consumer Health , 2011, Yearbook of Medical Informatics.

[36]  Petra Wilson,et al.  The quality of health information on the internet , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.