4.7 Article

A content analysis of YouTube videos on tinnitus in South Korea

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-40523-9

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study reviewed the quality of YouTube videos on tinnitus and found that they frequently present low-quality and incorrect material, which could have a negative impact on patients. The study emphasizes the importance of tinnitus specialists providing accurate information.
More people use the internet for medical information, especially YouTube. Nevertheless, no study has been conducted to analyze the quality of YouTube videos about tinnitus in Korea. This study aims to review the contents and quality of YouTube videos on tinnitus. The top 100 Korean YouTube videos on tinnitus were reviewed by a tinnitus expert. This study assessed video details: title, creator, length, and popularity indicators-subscribers, views, and likes. The contents of the video clips were analyzed to determine the relevance, understandability, actionability, and quality of information. Out of 100 tinnitus videos, 27 were created by otolaryngologists, 25 by traditional Korean medicine doctors, 25 by other medical professionals, and 3 by lay persons. Sensorineural tinnitus was frequently dealt, and hearing loss, stress, and noise were introduced as main causes of tinnitus. Otolaryngologists' videos covered verified treatments, but others suggested unproven therapies including herbal medicine or acupressure. Otolaryngologists' videos showed significantly higher understandability and quality of information compared to others (p < 0.001). This study found that tinnitus YouTube videos frequently present low-quality and incorrect material, which could have an adverse effect on patients. Results highlight the need for tinnitus specialists to provide accurate information.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available