Journals / Molecular Imaging and Radionuclide Therapy / 2022 / Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 1

Use of YouTube as an Information Source for Radioactive Iodine Therapy: Do YouTube Videos Have High Quality?

YouTube’un Radyoaktif İyot Tedavisi için Bilgi Kaynağı Olarak Kullanılması: YouTube Videoları Yüksek Kaliteye Sahip mi?

Pages
42–48
Publication Date
2022-09-03
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: Although high-quality videos on YouTube may inform and encourage patients positively, unprofessional, incorrect, and incomplete information can be also uploaded on YouTube and may mislead patients.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: Radioactive iodine (RAI) therapy is a radionuclide treatment for hyperthyroidism and well-differentiated thyroid cancer.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The terms “radyoaktif iyot tedavisi” and “radioactive iodine treatment” were used to search related videos in June 2021.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: Although high-quality videos on YouTube may inform and encourage patients positively, unprofessional, incorrect, and incomplete information can be also uploaded on YouTube and may mislead patients.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2021 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objectives: Radioactive iodine (RAI) therapy is a radionuclide treatment for hyperthyroidism and well-differentiated thyroid cancer. One of the most popular sources of information for patients on the internet is YouTube. This study aimed to examine the quality of videos about RAI treatment. Methods: This cross-sectional study was performed by using videos in YouTube. The terms “radyoaktif iyot tedavisi” and “radioactive iodine treatment” were used to search related videos in June 2021. The quality of the videos was assessed by using the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, the DISCERN scale, and the global quality scale (GQS). Results: Of the total 88 videos evaluated, 56 videos (30 in English, 26 in Turkish) were analyzed according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Seven (12.5%) videos were assigned to the high-quality group, 16 (28.58%) to the intermediate quality group, and 33 (58.92%) to the low quality group. The findings of this study showed that the most popular videos with the highest video power index (VPI) scores and the highest number of video likes and comments belonged to the intermediate quality group. Contrarily, popularity level, number of video likes, and number of video views were the lowest in the high-quality group. The analysis of video sources revealed that viewers most preferred non-physician-sourced videos, with average total views of 59307.80 [standard deviation (SD): 122554.13]. The most liked videos were non-physician-made videos, with average total likes of 424.35 (SD: 639.41). The mean VPI scores were the highest in non-physician-made videos, with 25.18 (SD: 25.69). The average JAMA (1.92, SD: 0.50), DISCERN (34.31, SD: 14.33), and GQS scores (2.61, SD: 0.99) were the highest in physician-made videos. Conclusion: Although high-quality videos on YouTube may inform and encourage patients positively, unprofessional, incorrect, and incomplete information can be also uploaded on YouTube and may mislead patients.

Özet

Amaç: Radyoaktif iyot (RAI) tedavisi, hipertiroidizm ve iyi diferansiye tiroid kanseri için bir radyonüklid tedavisidir. İnternette hastalar için en popüler bilgi kaynaklarından biri YouTube’dir. Bu çalışma, RAI tedavisi ile ilgili videoların kalitesini incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Yöntem: Bu kesitsel çalışma YouTube kullanılarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Haziran 2021’de ilgili videoların aranmasında “radyoaktif iyot tedavisi” ve “radioactive iodine treatment” terimleri kullanıldı. Videoların kalitesi, Amerikan Tıp Derneği Dergisi (JAMA) benchmark kriterleri, DISCERN ölçeği ve küresel kalite ölçeği kullanılarak (GQS) değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Toplam 88 video değerlendirildi ve toplam 56 video (30 İngilizce, 26 Türkçe) dahil edilme ve hariç tutulma kriterlerine göre analiz edildi. Yedi video (%12,5) yüksek kaliteli grup, 16 video (%28,58) orta kaliteli grup ve 33 video (%58,92) düşük kaliteli grup olarak sınıflandırıldı. Çalışmamızın bulguları, en yüksek video güç indeksi puanına sahip en popüler videolar ile en fazla beğeni ve yorum sayısına sahip videoların orta kalite grubundaki videolar olduğunu gösterdi. Aksine, popülerlik düzeyi, video beğeni sayısı ve video izlenme sayısı yüksek kaliteli video grubunda en düşük bulundu. Video kaynaklarının analizinde; izleyiciler tarafından en çok tercih edilen videoların, ortalama 59307,80 [standart sapma (SS): 122554,13] izlenme sayısı ile hekim kaynaklı olmayan videolar olduğu saptandı. En çok beğenilen videolar ise ortalama 424,35 (SS: 639,41) beğeni ile hekim olmayanlara aitti. Video güç indeksi puanlarının ortalaması en yüksek 25,18 (SS: 25,69) olarak saptanmış ve hekim olmayanlara ait videolarda bulunmuştur. Doktorlara ait videolarda ortalama JAMA (1,92, SS: 0,50), DISCERN (34,31, SS: 14,33) ve GQS puanları (2,61, SS: 0,99) en yüksek olarak saptanmıştır. Sonuç: Her ne kadar YouTube’deki yüksek kaliteli videolar, hastaları olumlu yönde bilgilendirebilmekte ve teşvik edici olabilmekte ise de; yanlış ve eksik bilgilendirmelerin de bu platforma yüklenebileceği ve hastaları yanıltabileceği unutulmamalıdır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Şan, H. (2022). Use of YouTube as an Information Source for Radioactive Iodine Therapy: Do YouTube Videos Have High Quality?. Molecular Imaging and Radionuclide Therapy, Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 1, 42–48. https://ajindex.com/articles/425687

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. O’Malley JP, Ziessman HA. Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging: The Requisites e-book: Elsevier; 2020
  2. Verburg FA. Differentiated Thyroid Cancer: Radioiodine Therapy. In: Ahmadzadehfar H, Biersack H-J, Freeman LM, Zuckier LS, (eds). Clinical Nuclear Medicine. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020;831- 844
  3. Dietlein M. Radioiodine Therapy for Benign Thyroid Disease. In: Ahmadzadehfar H, Biersack HJ, Freeman LM, Zuckier LS (eds). Clinical Nuclear Medicine. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020;815- 829
  4. Ermert J, Benešová M, Hugenberg V, Gupta V, Spahn I, Pietzsch HJ, Liolios C, Kopka K. Radiopharmaceutical Sciences. Clin Nucl Med 2020; 49-191
  5. Aktolun C, Goldsmith SJ. Nuclear medicine therapy: principles and clinical applications: Springer Science & Business Media; 2012
  6. Haugen BR, Alexander EK, Bible KC, Doherty GM, Mandel SJ, Nikiforov YE, Pacini F, Randolph GW, Sawka AM, Schlumberger M, Schuff KG, Sherman SI, Sosa JA, Steward DL, Tuttle RM, Wartofsky L. 2015 American thyroid association management guidelines for adult patients with thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid cancer: the American thyroid association guidelines task force on thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid cancer. Thyroid 2016;26:1-133
  7. Ross DS, Burch HB, Cooper DS, Greenlee MC, Laurberg P, Maia AL, Rivkees SA, Samuels M, Sosa JA, Stan MN, Walter MA. 2016 American thyroid Association Guidelines for diagnosis and management of hyperthyroidism and other causes of thyrotoxicosis. Thyroid 2016;26:1343-1421. Erratum in: Thyroid 2017;27:1462
  8. Drozd B, Couvillon E, Suarez A. Medical YouTube videos and methods of evaluation: literature review. JMIR Med Educ 2018;4:e3
  9. Yoon H, Jang Y, Vaughan PW, Garcia M. Older adults’ internet use for health information: digital divide by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. J Appl Gerontol 2020;39:105-110 10. Kocyigit BF, Nacitarhan V, Koca TT, Berk E. YouTube as a source of patient information for ankylosing spondylitis exercises. Clin Rheumatol 2019;38:1747-1751
  10. Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: caveant lector et viewor--let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA 1997;277:1244- 1245
  11. Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health 1999;53:105-111
  12. Bernard A, Langille M, H