4.6 Article

YouTube® and inflammatory bowel disease

期刊

JOURNAL OF CROHNS & COLITIS
卷 7, 期 5, 页码 392-402

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.crohns.2012.07.011

关键词

Crohn's disease; Internet; Ulcerative colitis; World Wide Web; You Tube

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and aims Nearly half of all patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) use the Internet as a source of information for their disease. We analyzed the source, content and accuracy of I BD videos found on YouTube (R) - one of the most popular websites in the United States - and assessed the demographic variables of the viewers. Methods: The 100 most viewed videos with relevant information on IBD were analyzed. We included only English language videos that were less than 20 min in length and primarily focused on IBD. Those with no sound/poor sound quality were excluded. More than 30 variables were analyzed. Results: Adults of 45-54 years old (95.1%) comprised the most common age group of viewers. Forty-eight percent of videos focused on Crohn's disease (CD), 32.0% on ulcerative colitis (UC), and 20.0% on both. Overall content for patient education was poor. Videos discussing alternative treatment options were more likely to depict patients personal experience (73.9% vs. 2.4%) (p<0.001) and be an advertisement compared to patient education videos (78.3% vs. 0) (p<0.001). Videos discussing patient education had a higher number of favorites (mean 25.0 vs. 5.5) (p<0.001), comments (mean 22.0 vs. 5.0) (p<0.022) and likes (mean 19.0 vs. 9.0) (p =0.025) than the ones discussing alternative treatment options. Conclusions: YouTube (R) videos on IBD are popular but a poor source of patient education. Healthcare providers and professional societies should provide more educational materials using this powerful Internet tool to counteract the misleading information, especially for the targeted age group (45-54 years). (C) 2012 European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据