YouTube as a source of information on dialysis: A content analysis
Identifieur interne : 000C27 ( Main/Merge ); précédent : 000C26; suivant : 000C28YouTube as a source of information on dialysis: A content analysis
Auteurs : Neetika Garg [États-Unis] ; Anand Venkatraman [États-Unis] ; Ambarish Pandey [États-Unis] ; Nilay Kumar [États-Unis]Source :
- Nephrology [ 1320-5358 ] ; 2015-05.
Abstract
Aim: End‐stage renal disease is a prevalent and growing health problem worldwide. With increasing Internet use, video‐sharing websites could potentially serve as a powerful platform for dissemination of information on dialysis. We conducted a cross‐sectional study to assess the accuracy, content and viewership of YouTube videos on dialysis. Methods: YouTube videos identified using the search term ‘dialysis’ were classified independently by two physicians as ‘useful,’ ‘misleading’ and ‘patient's personal experiences’. Five‐point ordinal scales were used to grade reliability and quality. Information regarding source of upload, content in seven pre‐defined domains and various viewer interaction metrics was collected. Results: Of the 115 videos with cumulative duration of 16.2 h and viewership of approximately 2.7 million, 67 (58.3%) were useful, 19 (16.5%) were misleading and 29 (25.2%) represented patient's personal experiences; kappa statistic for inter‐observer agreement was 0.985. Useful videos were the most comprehensive and had the highest reliability and quality scores. However, viewership per day was the lowest for useful videos at a median of 3 (interquartile range (IQR) 1–17), as compared with 11 (IQR 4–43) for misleading videos and 14 (IQR 5–30) for patient experiences (P = 0.013). All misleading videos were uploaded by individual users with unknown credentials. Of these, 68.4% promoted alternative therapies such as herbs and osmotherapy; 47.4% included advertisements for related services. Conclusions: Viewers favoured misleading videos and patient narratives over scientifically accurate information. Authoritative sources should use popular social media websites to provide relevant and easy‐to‐understand information on dialysis; including patient stories can make this material more engaging.
The Internet has provided easy access to health information. This paper evaluates the quality of information about dialysis from one popular website and the results are informative in many ways.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/nep.12397
Links toward previous steps (curation, corpus...)
- to stream Istex, to step Corpus: 001943
- to stream Istex, to step Curation: 001943
- to stream Istex, to step Checkpoint: 000105
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:77D1924DD26EA7CCBDE1CE59A6976FC4420EAF7FLe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">YouTube as a source of information on dialysis: A content analysis</title><author><name sortKey="Garg, Neetika" sort="Garg, Neetika" uniqKey="Garg N" first="Neetika" last="Garg">Neetika Garg</name></author><author><name sortKey="Venkatraman, Anand" sort="Venkatraman, Anand" uniqKey="Venkatraman A" first="Anand" last="Venkatraman">Anand Venkatraman</name></author><author><name sortKey="Pandey, Ambarish" sort="Pandey, Ambarish" uniqKey="Pandey A" first="Ambarish" last="Pandey">Ambarish Pandey</name></author><author><name sortKey="Kumar, Nilay" sort="Kumar, Nilay" uniqKey="Kumar N" first="Nilay" last="Kumar">Nilay Kumar</name></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:77D1924DD26EA7CCBDE1CE59A6976FC4420EAF7F</idno><date when="2015" year="2015">2015</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/nep.12397</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/ark:/67375/WNG-3R9DVBSX-2/fulltext.pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">001943</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">001943</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Curation">001943</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Checkpoint">000105</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Checkpoint">000105</idno><idno type="wicri:doubleKey">1320-5358:2015:Garg N:youtube:as:a</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Merge">000C27</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">YouTube as a source of information on dialysis: A content analysis</title><author><name sortKey="Garg, Neetika" sort="Garg, Neetika" uniqKey="Garg N" first="Neetika" last="Garg">Neetika Garg</name><affiliation wicri:level="3"><country xml:lang="fr">États-Unis</country><wicri:regionArea>Nephrology Division, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center/Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts, Boston</wicri:regionArea><placeName><settlement type="city">Boston</settlement><region type="state">Massachusetts</region></placeName></affiliation><affiliation></affiliation><affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Venkatraman, Anand" sort="Venkatraman, Anand" uniqKey="Venkatraman A" first="Anand" last="Venkatraman">Anand Venkatraman</name><affiliation wicri:level="3"><country xml:lang="fr">États-Unis</country><wicri:regionArea>Department of Neurology, University of Alabama Birmingham, Alabama, Birmingham</wicri:regionArea><placeName><settlement type="city">Birmingham</settlement><region type="country">Angleterre</region><region type="région" nuts="1">Midlands de l'Ouest</region></placeName></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Pandey, Ambarish" sort="Pandey, Ambarish" uniqKey="Pandey A" first="Ambarish" last="Pandey">Ambarish Pandey</name><affiliation wicri:level="3"><country xml:lang="fr">États-Unis</country><wicri:regionArea>Cardiology Division, Department of Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Texas, Dallas</wicri:regionArea><placeName><settlement type="city">Dallas</settlement><region type="state">Texas</region></placeName></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Kumar, Nilay" sort="Kumar, Nilay" uniqKey="Kumar N" first="Nilay" last="Kumar">Nilay Kumar</name><affiliation wicri:level="1"><country xml:lang="fr">États-Unis</country><wicri:regionArea>Department of Medicine, Cambridge Health Alliance/Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts, Cambridge</wicri:regionArea><wicri:noRegion>Cambridge</wicri:noRegion></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j" type="main">Nephrology</title><title level="j" type="alt">NEPHROLOGY</title><idno type="ISSN">1320-5358</idno><idno type="eISSN">1440-1797</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">20</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">5</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="315">315</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="320">320</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">6</biblScope><date type="published" when="2015-05">2015-05</date></imprint><idno type="ISSN">1320-5358</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">1320-5358</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">Aim: End‐stage renal disease is a prevalent and growing health problem worldwide. With increasing Internet use, video‐sharing websites could potentially serve as a powerful platform for dissemination of information on dialysis. We conducted a cross‐sectional study to assess the accuracy, content and viewership of YouTube videos on dialysis. Methods: YouTube videos identified using the search term ‘dialysis’ were classified independently by two physicians as ‘useful,’ ‘misleading’ and ‘patient's personal experiences’. Five‐point ordinal scales were used to grade reliability and quality. Information regarding source of upload, content in seven pre‐defined domains and various viewer interaction metrics was collected. Results: Of the 115 videos with cumulative duration of 16.2 h and viewership of approximately 2.7 million, 67 (58.3%) were useful, 19 (16.5%) were misleading and 29 (25.2%) represented patient's personal experiences; kappa statistic for inter‐observer agreement was 0.985. Useful videos were the most comprehensive and had the highest reliability and quality scores. However, viewership per day was the lowest for useful videos at a median of 3 (interquartile range (IQR) 1–17), as compared with 11 (IQR 4–43) for misleading videos and 14 (IQR 5–30) for patient experiences (P = 0.013). All misleading videos were uploaded by individual users with unknown credentials. Of these, 68.4% promoted alternative therapies such as herbs and osmotherapy; 47.4% included advertisements for related services. Conclusions: Viewers favoured misleading videos and patient narratives over scientifically accurate information. Authoritative sources should use popular social media websites to provide relevant and easy‐to‐understand information on dialysis; including patient stories can make this material more engaging.</div><div type="abstract">The Internet has provided easy access to health information. This paper evaluates the quality of information about dialysis from one popular website and the results are informative in many ways.</div></front></TEI></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Sante/explor/PandemieGrippaleV1/Data/Main/Merge
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000C27 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Main/Merge/biblio.hfd -nk 000C27 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Sante
|area= PandemieGrippaleV1
|flux= Main
|étape= Merge
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:77D1924DD26EA7CCBDE1CE59A6976FC4420EAF7F
|texte= YouTube as a source of information on dialysis: A content analysis
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.34. |  |