4.5 Article

Assessing the Educational Quality of Facebook Videos as an Informative Resource on Otitis Media

期刊

OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD AND NECK SURGERY
卷 164, 期 1, 页码 110-116

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0194599820933887

关键词

pediatric otology; acute otitis media; recurrent otitis media; otitis media; chronic otitis media; conductive hearing loss; health services

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The majority of OM videos on Facebook are found to be inadequate for educational purposes. Clinicians should be aware of these videos on OM and the quality of information parents are exposed to.
Objective This study analyzes the quality and reliability of otitis media (OM) videos on Facebook and investigates whether the videos shared within the Facebook community are considered to be a valuable educational tool. The results of this study are important for providing clinicians with the necessary understanding about the video content that their patients may be exposed to. Study Design Cross-sectional analysis of video content. Setting A new Facebook account was created to carry out a search for videos on OM. Methods Inclusion criteria were as follows: videos intended for educating patients or guardians on OM, videos in the English language, and videos with at least 1 share. Results A total of 364 videos were screened, and 62 fit our inclusion criteria for analysis. The majority (56%) of OM videos on Facebook focused on complementary and alternative medication without mentioning any current guidelines. A limited amount of videos (29%) made any mention to surgical treatment options for OM. There was a strong positive correlation (rho = 0.8419,P< .001) between a video's content and its reliability. There was no correlation seen between a video's content and its shares (rho = -0.142,P= .1359). Conclusions The majority of OM videos on Facebook are inadequate for educational value. Clinicians should know about the existence of videos on OM and the quality of information that parents are exposed to.

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

4.5
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