4.5 Article

Thumb-Sucking Habits and Oral Health: An Analysis of YouTube Content

Journal

CHILDREN-BASEL
Volume 9, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/children9020225

Keywords

digit sucking; oral habits; social media; thumb sucking; YouTube

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examined the content and usefulness of YouTube videos on thumb-sucking habits. The findings revealed that the quality of the videos was unsatisfactory and required improvement. Various treatment recommendations, including psychosocial approaches and mechanical or reminder therapy, were discussed.
This study aims to investigate the content and usefulness of YouTube videos on** thumb-sucking habits. Methods: YouTube was systematically searched for all relevant videos on thumb sucking using primary keywords, such as thumb, finger, and digit sucking. Video information was assessed, such as the type of video, number of likes or dislikes, number of views, and duration of upload. The usefulness of videos was analyzed, and information about treatment modalities was evaluated. Results: A total of 331 YouTube videos (314 educational offerings and 17 testimonials) were included in the analysis. Individual users uploaded (36.6%), followed by healthcare professionals (30.5%). Only 4.83% of the videos were classified as having very useful general information content, whereas 51.1% were rated as slightly useful. There was no significant correlation between the usefulness score and the interaction rate, video length, or viewing rate. The videos advised a psychosocial approach and mechanical or reminder therapy in 32.33% and 25.07% of videos, respectively. Preventive methods accounted for 7.26%, and chemical treatments were discussed in 5.44% of the videos. Conclusion: Information on YouTube about thumb-sucking habits was unsatisfactory and should be improved by oral healthcare professionals and organizations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available