Göz Sağlığı Hakkında Bilgi Kaynağı Olarak YouTube

Giriş: Göz sağlığı ile ilgili YouTube videoların güvenilirliğini, kalitesini ve popülerliğini değerlendirmek. Yöntem: Bu çalışma geriye dönük, kesitsel ve kayıt tabanlı bir çalışmadır. İnternet sistesinin standart arama tercihlerinde değişiklik yapmadan ‘göz sağlığı’ anahtar kelimesi kullanılarak bir YouTube araması yapıldı. Tüm videolar yayıncılar, videoyu sunanlar ve konularına göre ayrı ayrı kategorilendirildi. Videoların süresi, başlığı, izlenme sayısı, yüklemeden beri geçen süre, izlenme oranı (görüntülenme/gün), yorum sayısı, beğeni ve beğenmeme sayısı ve beğeni oranı kayıt edildi. Video içeriğinin kalitesi ve güvenilirliği; mDISCERN anketi (0–5), Amerikan Tabipler Birliği Dergisi (Journal of the American Medical Association-JAMA) skoru (0–4) ve Küresel Kalite Puanı (Global Quality Score -GQS) (0–5) kullanılarak ölçüldü. Videoların popülerliğini değerlendirmek için, video güç indeksi (Video Power Index-VPI) kullanıldı. Bulgular: Toplam 120 video analiz edildi, dahil edilme kriterlerini karşılayan 103 video değerlendirildi. Ortalama süre 17,85 ±18,94 (aralık; 0,30-59) dakika, ortalama görüntüleme sayısı 27825,11±153493,35 (aralık; 23-1302227) idi. Videoların ortalama JAMA, mDISCERN, GQS ve VPI değerleri sırasıyla; 1,82±0,38 (aralık; 1-2), 2,26±0,88 (aralık; 0-4), 2,5±0,94 (aralık; 1-4), 0,66±152,27 (aralık; 0-1085) idi. Videoda anlatım yapanların % 85,43’ü (n=88) göz doktoru idi. Videolar içeriklerine göre kategorize edildiğinde çocuklarda göz sağlığı (%36,89) hakkında bilgi veren videoların sayısı daha fazla idi. mDISCERN ile JAMA (ro=581 p

YouTube as a Source of Information About Eye Health

Objective: To evaluate the credibility, quality, and popularity of eye-health-related YouTube videos. Method: This is a retrospective, cross-sectional, register-based study. A YouTube search was conducted using the keyword “eye health” without changing the website’s default search parameters. All of the videos were categorized based on their publishers, presenters, and topics. The duration of the videos, title, number of views, time since upload, view rate (views/day), number of comments, number of likes and dislikes, and rate of likes were all recorded. The mDISCERN questionnaire (0–5), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) (0–4) score, and Global Quality Score (GQS) (0–5) were used to analyze the video content’s quality and reliability. Results: A total of 120 videos were analyzed, with 103 of them meeting the inclusion criteria. The mean viewing duration was 17.85±18.94 minutes (range: 0.30-59), and the mean number of views was 27825.11±153493.35 (range; 23-1302227). The meanJAMA, mDISCERN, GQS, and VPI scores of the videos were 1.82±0.38 (range: 1-2), 2.26±0.88 (range: 0-4), 2.5±0.94 (range: 1-4), and 0.66±152.27(range; 0-1085), respectively. 85.43% (n=88) of the narrators in the videos were ophthalmologists. According to the content of the videos, the number of videos related to pediatrics eye health was higher. (36.89%). There was a statistically significant positive correlation between mDISCERN and JAMA(ro=581 p

PDF

___

1. World Health Organization. Blindness and vision impairment. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/ detail/blindness-and-visual-impairment
2. Vision Loss Expert Group of the Global Burden of Disease Study. Causes of blindness and vision impairment in 2020 andtrends over 30 years: evaluating the prevalence of avoidable blindness in relation to “VISION 2020: the Right toSight”. Lancet Global Health 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30489-7
3. Asbell PA, Dualan I, Mindel J, Brocks D, Ahmad M, Epstein S. Age-related cataract. Lancet. 2005;365(9459):599-609. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)17911-2
4. Vision Loss Expert Group of the Global Burden of Disease Study. Trends in prevalence of a blindness and distance and near vision impairment over 30 an analysisforthe Global Burden of DiseaseStudy. Lancet Global Health 2020. https//doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30425-35
5. Sheeladevi S, Lawrenson JG, Fielder AR, Suttle CM. Global prevalence of childhood cataract: a systematic review. Eye (Lond). 2016;30(9):1160-1169. https//doi.org/10.1038/eye.2016.156
6. Bashinsky AL. Retinopathy of Prematurity. N C Med J. 2017;78(2):124-128. https//doi.org/10.18043/ncm.78.2.124
7. Fashner J. Eye Conditions in Infants and Children: Myopia and Hyperopia. FP Essent. 2019;484:23-27.
8. Whitehead L, Seaton P. The Effectiveness of Self-Management Mobile Phone and Tablet Apps in Long-term Condition Management: A Systematic Review. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18(5):e97. Published 2016 May 16. https//doi.org/10.2196/jmir.4883
9. Aleo CL, Hark L, Leiby B, Dai Y, Murchison AP, Martinez P, et al. Ophthalmic patients’ utilization of technology and social media: an assessment to improve quality of care. Telemed J E Health. 2014;20(10):887-92. Epub 2014 Sep 4. PMID: 25188532. https//doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2013.0365
10. Deiner MS, McLeod SD, Chodosh J, Oldenburg CE, Fathy CA, Lietman TM, et al. Clinical Age-Specific Seasonal Conjunctivitis Patterns and Their Online Detection in Twitter, Blog, Forum, and Comment Social Media Posts. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2018 1;59(2):910- 920. PMID: 29450538; PMCID: PMC5815847. https//doi.org/ 10.1167/iovs.17-22818
11. Aslam S. YouTube by the numbers: stats, demographics & fun facts: omnicore. 2019. https://www.omnicorea gency.com/youtubestatistics/
12. Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia. List of most popular web sites. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_ popular_websites. Accessed 11 Dec 2020.
13. Bae SS, Baxter S. YouTube videos in the English language as a patient education resource for cataract surgery. Int Ophthalmol. 2018;38:1941–1945.
14. Samuel N, Alotaibi NM, Lozano AM. YouTube as a source of information on neurosurgery. World Neurosurg. 2017;105:394–398.
15. 15. Drozd B, Couvillon E, Suarez A. Medical YouTube videos and methods of evaluation: literature review. JMIR MedEduc. 2018;4:e3.
16. Aydin MA, Akyol H. Quality of Information Available on YouTube Videos Pertaining to Thyroid Cancer. J CancerEduc. 2020;35(3):599- 605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-019-01502-9
17. Moorhead SA, Hazlett DE, Harrison L, Carroll JK, Irwin A, Hoving C. A new dimension of health care: systematic review of the uses, benefits, and limitations of social media for health communication. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(4):e85. Published 2013 Apr 23. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1933
18. Madathil KC, Rivera-Rodriguez AJ, Greenstein JS, Gramopadhye AK. Healthcare information on YouTube: A systematic review. Health Informatics J. 2015;21(3):173-194. https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458213512220
19. Erdem MN, Karaca S. Evaluating the accuracy and quality of the information in kyphosis videoss hared on YouTube. Spine (PhilaPa 1976). 2018;43:1334–1339.
20. Singh AG, Singh S, Singh PP. YouTube for information on rheumatoid arthritis - a wakeup call?.J Rheumatol. 2015;39:899–903.
21. Couser NL, Smith-Marshall J. The Washington metropolitan pediatric vision screening quality control assessment. ISRN Ophthalmol. 2011;2011:801957.
22. deKoning HJ, Groenewoud JH, Lantau VK, Tjiam AM, Hoogeveen WC, de Faber JT, et al. Effectiveness of screening for amblyopia and other eye disorders in a prospective birth cohort study. J MedScreen. 2013 Jun;20(2):66- 72.Epub 2013 Jul 19. PMID: 24009090. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969141313497355
23. Wilk AS, Platt JE. Measuring physicians’ trust: a scoping review with implications for public policy. SocSciMed 2016;165:75-81.
24. Goldman RD. Online resources in pediatrics. Can Fam Physician 2014;60:443-4.
25. Goldman RD, Macpherson A. Internet health information use and e-mail Access by parents attending a paediatric emergency department. Emerg Med J 2006;23:345-8.
26. Alexa: Youtube.com. https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/youtube. com. AccessedAugust 19, 2019.
27. Bourne RR, Stevens GA, White RA, et al. Causes of visionloss worldwide, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis. LancetGlobHealth. 2013; 1:e339–e49.
28. Resnikoff S, Pascolini D, Mariotti SP, Pokharel GP. Global magnitude of visua limpairment caused by uncorrected refractive errors in 2004. Bull World Health Organ. 2008;86(1):63- 70. PMID: 18235892; PMCID: PMC2647357. https://doi.org/10.2471/blt.07.041210
29. Alió JL, Krueger RR, Bidgoli S. The World burden of refractive blindness. J RefractSurg. 2016;32:582–584.
30. Williams AM, Muir KW, Rosdahl JA. Readability of patient education materials in ophthalmology: a single-institution study and systematic review. BMC Ophthalmol. 2016;16:133.
31. 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. PLoSOne. 2013 Dec 18;8(12):e82469. PMID: 24367517; PMCID: PMC3867348. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0082469
32. Tartaglione JP, Rosenbaum AJ, Abousayed M, Hushmendy SF, DiPreta JA. Evaluating the Quality, Accuracy, and Readability of Online Resources Pertaining to Hallux Valgus. FootAnkleSpec. 2016;9(1):17-23. Epub 2015 Jun 29. PMID: 26123550. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938640015592840
33. Gokcen HB, Gumussuyu G. A quality analysis of discherniation videos on YouTube. World Neurosurg. 2019.
34. Garg N, Venkatraman A, Pandey A, Kumar N. YouTube as a source of information on dialysis: a content analysis. Nephrology (Carlton). 2015 May;20(5):315-20. PMID: 25641264. https://doi.org/10.1111/nep.12397
35. Guthrie G, DaviesRM, Fleming CK,Browning AC. YouTube as a source of information about retinitis pigmentosa. Eye (Lond). 2014 Apr;28(4):499-500. Epub 2014 Jan 17. PMID: 24434660; PMCID: PMC3983636. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2013.312.
36. Hickman SJ. An evaluation of education alneurological eye movement disorder videos posted on internet video sharing sites. J Neuroophthalmol. 2016;36:33–36.
37. Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999 Feb;53(2):105-11. PMID: 10396471; PMCID: PMC1756830. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.53.2.105
38. Kuçuk B, Sirakaya E. An analysis of youtube videos as educational resources for patients aboutre fractive surgery. Cornea. 2020;39:491– 494.