4.0 Article

Is YouTube Useful as a Source of Health Information for Adults With Type 2 Diabetes? A South Asian Perspective

期刊

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF DIABETES
卷 42, 期 4, 页码 395-+

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcjd.2017.10.056

关键词

South Asian; type 2 diabetes; YouTube; social media; consumer health

资金

  1. Lawson Foundation [GRT 2012-057]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To investigate the content, quality and popularity of information about type 2 diabetes available on YouTube. Methods: We searched YouTube with the terms Diabetes, Diabetes type 2, Diabetes South Asians, Diabetes Punjabi and Diabetes Hindi to identify videos concerning type 2 diabetes. A team of health-care providers independently classified the first 20 videos from each search as useful, misleading, or personal experience, rated them on a 5-point global quality scale (GQS) and categorized their content on a 26-point scale in duplicate. Useful videos were rated for reliability by using a 5-point modified DISCERN scale. Higher scores represent better quality, reliability and comprehensiveness. Results: Of 100 videos, 71 met the inclusion criteria; 45 (63.4%) were rated as useful (median GQS, 3; interquartile range [IQR], 2 to 4); and 23 (32.4%) were deemed misleading (median GQS, 1; IQR, 1 to 2) Median reliability and content scores for useful videos were 3 (IQR, 2 to 3) and 5 (IQR, 3 to 10), respectively, and 6 videos met >= 4 of 5 reliability criteria. Overall, misleading videos were more popular than useful videos (median, 233 views/day; IQR, 26 to 523; vs. 8.3 views/day; IQR, 0.4 to 134.6; p<001). Culturally tailored videos were just as likely to be misleading and had similar GQS scores in comparison to nonculturally tailored videos (32.1% vs. 32.6% and 3 vs. 3, respectively). Conclusions: The quality of identified videos concerning type 2 diabetes was variable, and misleading videos weie popular. Further creation and curation of high-quality video resources is required. (C) 2017 Canadian Diabetes Association.

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

4.0
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