YouTube-videos for patient education in lymphangioleiomyomatosis?
DISCERN
HONcode
Lymphangioleiomyomatosis
Patient education
Video
Journal
Respiratory research
ISSN: 1465-993X
Titre abrégé: Respir Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101090633
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 Apr 2022
27 Apr 2022
Historique:
received:
17
02
2022
accepted:
12
04
2022
entrez:
28
4
2022
pubmed:
29
4
2022
medline:
30
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The Internet is commonly used by patients to acquire health information. To date, no studies have evaluated the quality of information available on YouTube regarding lymphangioleiomyomatosis (LAM). Our aim was to determine the quality and content of YouTube videos regarding LAM and to compare the information provided with current knowledge and guidelines about the disease. The first 200 video hits on YouTube in English for the search term "lymphangioleiomyomatosis" were recorded. All videos suitable for patient education on LAM were included. Video quality was analyzed independently by two investigators utilizing the Health on the Net (HONcode) score, which assesses whether websites provide understandable, accessible, and trustworthy health information; the DISCERN score, which evaluates the quality of information about treatment decisions; and a newly developed LAM-related content score (LRCS) with 31 guideline elements. The search identified 64 eligible videos. The "engagement rate" of 0.3 was low, with a median number of views of 408 (range 42-73,943), a median of 4 likes (range 0-2082), and the majority (53%) receiving a low HONcode score (≤ 2) and only 10% of videos achieving a high score (> 5). The median DISCERN score was 28 (range 15-61, maximum possible score 80), indicating poor video quality and reliability. The median LRCS was 8 (range 0-29, maximum possible score 31) and videos frequently failed to provide sources of information. Online resources could contribute to the limited and often inaccurate information available to patients with LAM, with only a few YouTube videos providing high-quality patient-relevant information.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The Internet is commonly used by patients to acquire health information. To date, no studies have evaluated the quality of information available on YouTube regarding lymphangioleiomyomatosis (LAM). Our aim was to determine the quality and content of YouTube videos regarding LAM and to compare the information provided with current knowledge and guidelines about the disease.
METHODS
METHODS
The first 200 video hits on YouTube in English for the search term "lymphangioleiomyomatosis" were recorded. All videos suitable for patient education on LAM were included. Video quality was analyzed independently by two investigators utilizing the Health on the Net (HONcode) score, which assesses whether websites provide understandable, accessible, and trustworthy health information; the DISCERN score, which evaluates the quality of information about treatment decisions; and a newly developed LAM-related content score (LRCS) with 31 guideline elements.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The search identified 64 eligible videos. The "engagement rate" of 0.3 was low, with a median number of views of 408 (range 42-73,943), a median of 4 likes (range 0-2082), and the majority (53%) receiving a low HONcode score (≤ 2) and only 10% of videos achieving a high score (> 5). The median DISCERN score was 28 (range 15-61, maximum possible score 80), indicating poor video quality and reliability. The median LRCS was 8 (range 0-29, maximum possible score 31) and videos frequently failed to provide sources of information.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Online resources could contribute to the limited and often inaccurate information available to patients with LAM, with only a few YouTube videos providing high-quality patient-relevant information.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35477513
doi: 10.1186/s12931-022-02022-9
pii: 10.1186/s12931-022-02022-9
pmc: PMC9043877
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
103Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2022 Jan 1;205(1):17-35
pubmed: 34658302
Lymphat Res Biol. 2010 Mar;8(1):5-8
pubmed: 20235882
ERJ Open Res. 2016 Apr 21;2(2):
pubmed: 27730199
Lancet Respir Med. 2021 Nov;9(11):1313-1327
pubmed: 34461049
Pneumologie. 2019 Jan;73(1):22-23
pubmed: 30541159
Oral Dis. 2016 Apr;22(3):202-8
pubmed: 26718020
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2020 Sep;63(9):1151-1160
pubmed: 32666180
Chest. 2019 Feb;155(2):288-296
pubmed: 29940164
Respir Res. 2021 Mar 24;22(1):92
pubmed: 33761959
Am J Pathol. 1975 May;79(2):348-82
pubmed: 1146965
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2001 Aug 15;164(4):669-71
pubmed: 11520735
Stud Health Technol Inform. 1998;52 Pt 2:1163-6
pubmed: 10384641
Chest. 2004 Dec;126(6):1867-74
pubmed: 15596686
PLoS One. 2016 May 12;11(5):e0155331
pubmed: 27171001
Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2019 May;16(5):572-579
pubmed: 30608877
Chron Respir Dis. 2014 May;11(2):61-71
pubmed: 24659212
Eur Respir J. 2016 Feb;47(2):597-606
pubmed: 26585424
Euro Surveill. 2020 Mar;25(9):
pubmed: 32156327
Health Informatics J. 2015 Sep;21(3):173-94
pubmed: 24670899
N Engl J Med. 2011 Apr 28;364(17):1595-606
pubmed: 21410393
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Dec 19;12:CD005074
pubmed: 27990628
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1999 Aug;160(2):628-33
pubmed: 10430739
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016 Jul 15;194(2):218-25
pubmed: 26849779
J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999 Feb;53(2):105-11
pubmed: 10396471
Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2008 Apr;133(14):705-8
pubmed: 18363188
J Asthma Allergy. 2017 Jun 16;10:191-196
pubmed: 28670135
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016 Sep 15;194(6):748-61
pubmed: 27628078