Hareketli ortodontik apareyler ile ilgili youtube™ videolarının içerik analizi

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı hareketli ortodontik apareyler hakkında bilgi almak isteyen hastalar için sosyal medyada sunulan bilgilerin kalitesini incelemektir.Gereç ve Yöntem: YouTube ™’ da Google Trends uygulamasıyla "removable orthodontic appliance" anahtar kelimesini kullanarak ilgili videolar aratıldı. 75 sonuçtan yetersiz olanlar çıkarıldıktan sonra analiz edilmek üzere 28 video seçildi. Video içerik kalitesini düşük ve yüksek olarak sınıflandırmak için 7 parametreden oluşan bir puanlama sistemi kullanıldı. Videoların kalitesini evrensel olarak değerlendirmek için video bilgileri ve kalite indeksi (VBKİ) uygulandı. İstatiksel değerlendirmede Student t-testi, Mann-Whitney U-testi, Chi-square testi ve Pearson korelasyon katsayısı hesaplandı.Bulgular: YouTube ™’ a yüklenen videoların içerik kalitesi 7 puan üzerinden ortalama 2,82 puan ve videoların 22 (%78,6)’i düşük içerikli, 6 (%21,4)’i ise yüksek içerikli olarak bulundu. Apareylerin kullanım prosedürleri videolarda en çok bahsedilen konulardı (%78,6). Apareylerin uygulanma zamanı, uygulama yöntemi, yararları ve kullanım önerilerine yüksek içerikli grupta daha sık değinilmişti (p,05). YouTube ™’ a hareketli ortodontik apareylerle ilgili video yükleyenlerin yükledikleri videoların içerik kalitesi karşılaştırıldığında istatistiksel bir fark ortaya çıkmadı (p>,05). Sonuç: Hareketli ortodontik apareyler arama terimi YouTube ™’da aratıldığında çıkan sonuçların birçoğu yetersiz olduğundan bilgiye ulaşmak zorlaşmaktır. Hareketli ortodontik apareylerle ilgili YouTube ™ videoların genellikle içerik kalitesi düşüktür. Yüksek içerikli videoları yüklemesi beklenen uzman/diş hekimleri içerik açısından diğer gruplara bir üstünlük sağlayamamıştır. Klinisyenler sosyal medya ve YouTube ™’un bilgilendirici özelliğini değerlendirmeli ve daha yüksek içerikli videolar üretmelidir.

Youtube™ video content analysis on removable orthodontic appliance

Aim: Since it is difficult to understand by patients or parents, YouTube videos can be used to describe removable orthodontic appliance. To examine the quality of information provided on YouTube about removable orthodontic appliance. Materials and Methods: Videos were searched on YouTubeTM using the key words of “removable orthodontic appliance” in the Google Trends application. From the first 75 results, after discarding the ones immediately deemed insufficient, 28 videos were selected for analysis. To classify the video content as high or low, a scoring system formed of 7 parameters was used. For a global evaluation of the video quality, the video information and quality index (VIQI) was applied. Results: The quality of the content of videos was found to be mean 2.82 from a maximum of 7 points, with 6 (21,4%) videos determined to be of high quality and 22 (78.6%) of low quality. The procedures of using the appliances were the most mentioned subjects in the videos (78.6%). The application time, application method, benefits and recommendations for use of the appliances were mentioned more frequently in the high content group (p .05). Conclusion: The content quality of videos on YouTubeTM about removable orthodontic appliance is usually low. High-quality content expected from videos uploaded by specialists /dental practitioners was not provided compared to other groups.

PDF

___

1. Topkara Ahu, Sarı Zafer. Ortodontik tedavilerde kullanılan hareketli aparey tipleri. SÜ Diş Hek Fak Derg 2009; 18: 74-77.
2. Kerr W J S, McColl J H, Frostick L. The use of removable orthodontic appliances in the General Dental Service. Br Dent J 1996; 181: 18-22.
3. Roberts-Harry D, Sandy J. Orthodontics. Part 5: Appliance choices, Br Dent J 2004; 196: 9-18.
4. Littlewood SJ, Tait AG, Mandal NA, Lewis DH. The role of removable appliances in contemporary orthodontics, Br Dent J 2001; 191: 304-310.
5. Proffit WR. Fixed and Removable appliances, Contemporary Orthodontics;2nd ed, St. Louis, Mosby-Year Book Inc,; 1993.
6. AlGhamdi KM, Moussa NA. Internet use by the public to search for health-related information. Int J Med Inf 2012; 81: 363-373.
7. Noll D, Mahon B, Shroff B, Carrico C, Lindauer SJ. Twitter analysis of the orthodontic patient experience with braces vs Invisalign. Angle Orthod 2016; 87: 377-383.
8. Madathil KC, Rivera-Rodriguez AJ, Greenstein JS, Gramopadhye AK. Healthcare information on YouTube: a systematic review. Health Informs J 2015; 21: 173-194.
9. Greene JA, Choudhry NK, Kilabuk E, Shrank WH. Online social networking by patients with diabetes: a qualitative evaluation of communication with Facebook. J Gen Intern Med 2011; 26: 287-292.
10. De Boer MJ, Versteegen GJ, Van Wijhe M. Patients’ use of the Internet for pain-related medical information. Patien Educ Coun 2007; 68: 86-97.
11. Youtube.com’s global traffic rank. (https://www.alexa. com/siteinfo/youtube.com)
12. Omnicoreagency.com. YouTube Statistics.(https:// www.omnicoreagency.com/youtube-statistics/ )
13. Al-Silwadi FM, Gill DS, Petrie A, Cunningham SJ. Effect of social media in improving knowledge among patients having fixed appliance orthodontic treatment: a single-center randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2015; 148: 231-237.
14. ElKarmi R, Hassona Y, Taimeh D, Scully C. YouTube as a source for parents’ education on early childhood caries. Int J Paediatr Dent 2017; 27: 437-443.
15. Hansen C, Interrante JD, Ailes EC, Frey MT, Broussard CS, et al. Assessment of YouTube videos as a source of information on medication use in pregnancy. Pharmacoepidem Drug Safety 2016; 25: 35-44.
16. Basch CH, Kecojevic A, Berdnik A, Cadorett V, Basch CE. An analysis of widely viewed youtube videos on anal cancer. Int J Prevent Med 2017; 8.
17. Lena Y, Dindaroğlu F. Lingual orthodontic treatment: A YouTube™ video analysis. Angle Orthod 2017; 88: 208- 214.
18. Desai T, Shariff A, Dhingra V, Minhas D, Eure M, Kats M. Is content really king? An objective analysis of the public's response to medical videos on YouTube. PLoS One 2013; 8: e82469.
19. Rachel HM, Margaret Knight A, Morgaine KS, Antoun J, Farella MA. qualitative analysis of orthodontic-related posts on Twitter. Angle Orthod 2013; 84: 203-207.
20. Nason K, Donnelly A, Duncan H. YouTube as a patient‐information source for root canal treatment. Int Endod J 2016; 49: 1194-1200.
21. Pandey A, Patni N, Singh M, Sood A, Singh G. YouTube as a source of information on the H1N1 influenza pandemic. Am J Prev Med 2010; 38: e1-e3.
22. Nason GJ, Kelly P, Kelly ME, Burke MJ, Aslam A, Giri SK, et al. YouTube as an educational tool regarding male urethral catheterization. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2015; 49: 189-192.
23. Knösel M, Jung K. Informational value and bias of videos related to orthodontics screened on a video-sharing Web site. Angle Orthod 2011; 81: 532-539.
24. American Association of Orthodontists. Clinical Practice Guidelines Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2008. (https://www.aaoinfo.org/system/files/media/documents/2014%20Cllinical%20Practice%20Guidelines.pdf)
25. Boston M, Ruwe E, Duggins A, Willging JP. Internet use by parents of children undergoing outpatient otolaryngology procedures. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2005; 131: 719-722.
26. Singh AG, Singh S, Singh PP. YouTube for information on rheumatoid arthritis-a wakeup call? J Rheumatol 2012; 111: 114.
27. Beall Iii MS, Golladay GJ, Greenfield MLV, Hensinger RN, Biermann JS. Use of the Internet by pediatric orthopaedic outpatients. J Pediatr Orthop 2002; 22: 261-264.
28. Wainstein BK, Sterling‐Levis K, Baker SA, Taitz J, Brydon M. Use of the Internet by parents of paediatric patients. J Paediatr Child Health 2006; 42: 528-532.
29. Bezner SK, Hodgman EI, Diesen DL, Clayton JT, Minkes RK, Langer JC, et al. Pediatric surgery on YouTube™: Is the truth out there? J Pediatr Surg 2014; 49: 586-589.