SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi / 2021 / Sayı: 31

Assessment of the Quality and Reliability of Information on Nutrition for Patients with Diabetes on YouTube

YouTube'da Diyabetli Hastalar İçin Beslenme Bilgilerinin Kalitesinin ve Güvenilirliğinin Değerlendirilmesi

Nazlı Batar(İstanbul Kültür Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi, Beslenme ve Diyetetik Bölümü)0000-0001-9527-5709
Gizem Aşkın(ISTANBUL KULTUR UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-6209-1361
Elif Beyza İpek(ISTANBUL KULTUR UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-1291-5844
Sezen Sevdin(FENERBAHCE UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-5961-8054
Rümeysa Özçalkap(ISTANBUL KULTUR UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-8006-0411
Pages
268–274
Publication Date
2021-12-31
🏛️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)

Conclusions: It has been observed that videos on nutrition for diabetic patients on YouTube are of low quality in terms of quality and reliability.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Background/Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy, and the quality of the information of the videos about diabetes and nutrition on YouTube.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Subjects/Methods: Using the keywords "diabetic diet" and "nutrition of diabetic patient", a search was conducted on YouTube, and the first 100 videos for each keyword, 200 videos in total were analyzed.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusions: It has been observed that videos on nutrition for diabetic patients on YouTube are of low quality in terms of quality and reliability.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:YouTube · Diyabetik Diyet · Diyabetik Hastanın Beslenmesi

Abstract

Background/Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy, and the quality of the information of the videos about diabetes and nutrition on YouTube. Subjects/Methods: Using the keywords "diabetic diet" and "nutrition of diabetic patient", a search was conducted on YouTube, and the first 100 videos for each keyword, 200 videos in total were analyzed. The popularity of the videos was calculated using the video power index (VPI) and view rates. Among these 200 videos, 32 were non-English videos, 36 were nonnutritional videos, and 38 were duplicate videos. The quality and the accuracy of the information was evaluated using the DISCERN score, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) score, the Global Quality Score (GQS), the usefulness score, and a novel diabetic diet score (DDS). SPSS 20 was used for statistical analysis. Results: Physician, dietitian, commercial, and patient-sourced videos differed significantly in DISCERN, GQS, and usefulness scores (p<0.05). In the DISCERN, GQS, and usefulness scores, physician sourced videos had statistically higher scores than commercial-sourced videos (.0125). A significant and positive correlation was found between view ratio and video power index. Besides, there was a statistically significant and positive correlation between the number of views and DISCERN, JAMA, GQS, usefulness score and DDS, while a positive correlation was found between number of likes and video strength indexes (p <0.001). Conclusions: It has been observed that videos on nutrition for diabetic patients on YouTube are of low quality in terms of quality and reliability.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, YouTube'daki diyabet ve beslenme ile ilgili videoların doğruluğunu ve kalitesini değerlendirmektir. Yöntem: "Diyabetik diyet" ve "şeker hastasının beslenmesi" anahtar kelimeleri kullanılarak YouTube'da arama yapılmış ve her bir anahtar kelime için ilk 100 video olmak üzere toplam 200 video analiz edilmiştir. Videoların popülaritesi, video güç indeksi (VPI) ve görüntüleme oranları kullanılarak hesaplanmıştır. Bu 200 videonun 32'si İngilizce olmayan videolar, 36'sı beslenme dışı videolar ve 38'i yinelenen videolardır. Bilgilerin kalitesi ve doğruluğu DISCERN puanı, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) puanı, Global Kalite Puanı (GQS), kullanışlılık puanı ve yeni bir diyabetik diyet puanı (DDS) kullanılarak değerlendirilmiştir. İstatistiksel analiz için SPSS 20 kullanılmıştır. Sonuç: Hekim, diyetisyen, ticari ve hasta kaynaklı videolar DISCERN, GQS ve kullanışlılık puanlarında anlamlı farklılık göstermiştir (p<0.05). DISCERN, GQS ve kullanışlılık puanlarında, hekim kaynaklı videolar, ticari kaynaklı videolardan istatistiksel olarak daha yüksek puanlara sahiptir (.0125). Görüntüleme oranı ile video güç indeksi arasında anlamlı ve pozitif bir ilişki bulunmuştur. Ayrıca izlenme sayısı ile DISCERN, JAMA, GQS, kullanışlılık puanı ve DDS arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı ve pozitif bir ilişki bulunurken, beğeni sayısı ile video güç indeksleri arasında pozitif bir ilişki bulunmuştur (p<0,001). Sonuç: YouTube'da diyabet hastaları için beslenme ile ilgili videoların kalite ve güvenilirlik açısından düşük kalitede olduğu görülmüştür.

🔖

Cite This Article

Batar, N., Aşkın, G., İpek, E. B., Sevdin, S., Özçalkap, R. (2021). Assessment of the Quality and Reliability of Information on Nutrition for Patients with Diabetes on YouTube. Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, Sayı: 31, 268–274. https://doi.org/10.31590/ejosat.992770

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (28)

  1. Abedin, T., Ahmed, S., Al Mamun, M., Ahmed, S. W., Newaz, S., Rumana, N., & Turin, T. C. (2015). YouTube as a source of useful information on diabetes foot care. Diabetes research and clinical practice, 110(1), e1–e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2015.08.003
  2. Atkinson, N. L., Saperstein, S. L., & Pleis, J. (2009). Using the internet for health-related activities: findings from a national probability sample. Journal of medical Internet research, 11(1), e4. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.103
  3. Bernard, A., Langille, M., Hughes, S., Rose, C., Leddin, D., & Veldhuyzen van Zanten, S. (2007). A systematic review of patient inflammatory bowel disease information resources on the World Wide Web. The American journal of gastroenterology, 102(9), 2070–2077. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01325.x
  4. Biggs, T., Bird, J., Harries, P., & Salib, R. (2013). YouTube as a source of information on rhinosinusitis: the good, the bad and the ugly. The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, 127, 749 - 754.
  5. Celik, H., Polat, O., Ozcan, C., Camur, S., Kilinc, B. E., & Uzun, M. (2020). Assessment of the Quality and Reliability of the Information on Rotator Cuff Repair on YouTube. Orthopaedics & traumatology, surgery & research: OTSR, 106(1), 31–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2019.10.004
  6. Charnock, D., Shepperd, S., Needham, G., & Gann, R. (1999). DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. Journal of epidemiology and community health, 53(2), 105–111. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.53.2.105
  7. Coşansu G (2015). Diyabet: Küresel Bir Salgın Hastalık. Okmeydanı Tıp Dergisi, 31(ek sayı), 1 - 6.
  8. Desai, T., Shariff, A., Dhingra, V., Minhas, D., Eure, M., & Kats, M. (2013). Is content really king? An objective analysis of the public's response to medical videos on YouTube. PloS one, 8(12), e82469. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0082469
  9. Diabetes Canada Clinical Practice Guidelines Expert Committee, Sievenpiper, J. L., Chan, C. B., Dworatzek, P. D., Freeze, C., & Williams, S. L. (2018). Nutrition Therapy. Canadian journal of diabetes, 42 Suppl 1, S64–S79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjd.2017.10.009
  10. Erdem, H., & Sisik, A. (2018). The Reliability of Bariatric Surgery Videos in YouTube Platform. Obesity surgery, 28(3), 712–716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-017-2911-3
  11. Erdem, M. N., & Karaca, S. (2018). Evaluating the Accuracy and Quality of the Information in Kyphosis Videos Shared on YouTube. Spine, 43(22), E1334–E1339. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002691
  12. Esen, E., Aslan, M., Sonbahar, B. Ç., & Kerimoğlu, R. S. (2019). YouTube English videos as a source of information on breast self-examination. Breast cancer research and treatment, 173(3), 629–635. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-5044-z
  13. Ferhatoglu, M. F., Kartal, A., Ekici, U., & Gurkan, A. (2019). Evaluation of the Reliability, Utility, and Quality of the Information in Sleeve Gastrectomy Videos Shared on Open Access Video Sharing Platform YouTube. Obesity surgery, 29(5), 1477–1484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-019-03738-2
  14. Fox, S., & Duggan, M. (2013). Tracking for health. Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project.
  15. Gimenez-Perez, G., Robert-Vila, N., Tomé-Guerreiro, M., Castells, I., & Mauricio, D. (2020). Are YouTube videos useful for patient self-education in type 2 diabetes? Health informatics journal, 26(1), 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458218813632
  16. Han, T., Gao, J., Wang, L., Li, C., Qi, L., Sun, C., & Li, Y. (2020). The Association of Energy and Macronutrient Intake at Dinner Versus Breakfast with Disease-Specific and All-Cause Mortality Among People With Diabetes: The U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2003-2014. Diabetes care, 43(7), 1442–1448. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc19-2289
  17. Kocyigit, B. F., & Akaltun, M. S. (2019). Does YouTube provide high quality information? Assessment of secukinumab videos. Rheumatology international, 39(7), 1263–1268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-019-04322-8
  18. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. Lee, J. S., Seo, H. S., & Hong, T. H. (2014). YouTube as a source of patient information on gallstone disease. World journal of gastroenterology, 20(14), 4066–4070. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v20.i14.4066
  19. Madathil, K. C., Rivera-Rodriguez, A. J., Greenstein, J. S., & Gramopadhye, A. K. (2015). Healthcare information on YouTube: A systematic review. Health informatics journal, 21(3), 173–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458213512220
  20. Nason, G. J., Kelly, P., Kelly, M. E., Burke, M. J., Aslam, A., Giri, S. K., & Flood, H. D. (2015). YouTube as an educational tool regarding male urethral catheterization. Scandinavian journal of urology, 49(2), 189–192. https://doi.org/10.3109/21681805.2014.975837
  21. Pant, S., Deshmukh, A., Murugiah, K., Kumar, G., Sachdeva, R., & Mehta, J. L. (2012). Assessing the credibility of the "YouTube approach" to health information on acute myocardial infarction. Clinical cardiology, 35(5), 281–285. https://doi.org/10.1002/clc.21981
  22. Pons-Fuster, E., Ruiz Roca, J., Tvarijonaviciute, A., & López-Jornet, P. (2020). YouTube information about diabetes and oral healthcare. Odontology, 108(1), 84–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-019-00445-3
  23. Rittberg, R., Dissanayake, T., & Katz, S. J. (2016). A qualitative analysis of methotrexate self-injection education videos on YouTube. Clinical rheumatology, 35(5), 1329–1333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-015-2910-5
  24. Rutten, L. J., Squiers, L., & Hesse, B. (2006). Cancer-related information seeking hints from the 2003 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS). Journal of health communication, 11 Suppl 1, 147–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730600637574
  25. Silberg, W. M., Lundberg, G. D., & Musacchio, R. A. (1997). Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: Caveant lector et viewor--Let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA, 277(15), 1244–1245.
  26. Smith, P. E., McGuire, J., Falci, M., Poudel, D. R., Kaufman, R., Patterson, M. A., Pelleschi, B., & Shin, E. (2019). Analysis of YouTube as a Source of Information for Diabetic Foot Care. Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association, 109(2), 122–126. https://doi.org/10.7547/16-149
  27. Tolu, S., Yurdakul, O. V., Basaran, B., & Rezvani, A. (2018). English-language videos on YouTube as a source of information on self-administer subcutaneous anti-tumour necrosis factor agent injections. Rheumatology international, 38(7), 1285–1292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-018-4047-8
  28. Wild, S., Roglic, G., Green, A., Sicree, R., & King, H. (2004). Global prevalence of diabetes estimates for the year 2000 and projections for 2030. Diabetes care, 27(5), 1047–1053. https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.27.5.1047