Abstract
Objectives
To assess the quality and content of information regarding external cephalic version on YouTube.
Methods
YouTube was searched using the phrase “external cephalic version” (ECV) to identify informative videos by two independent reviewers. Videos were included if: (1) in English; (2) available November 20, 2021; (3) related to ECV. Videos were excluded if: (1) duration exceeded 15 min; (2) target audience was not patients or the general public; (3) not in English; (4) were advertisements or news clips; (5) did not relate to ECV. The Global Quality Scale was used to assess overall quality of selected videos. A content score was developed based on guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Video quality was also categorized as “slightly useful”, “useful” and “very useful”. The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) for audiovisual materials was used to score understandability and actionability.
Results
Of 60 videos screened, 31 met inclusion criteria. They were classified as People or Blogs (n=19, 61%) or Education (n=12, 39%). Videos were calculated to be “slightly useful” (n=10, 32%), “useful” (n=18, 58%), or “very useful” (n = 3, 10%). The PEMAT – understandability was less in the “slightly useful” compared to the combined “useful” and “very useful” groups, p<0.01. No differences existed between total usefulness score and category, p=0.6.
Conclusions
Most videos were useful, but few were very useful. These results highlight the importance of thorough counseling regarding this procedure.
-
Research funding: None declared.
-
Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.
-
Competing interests: Authors state no conflict of interest.
-
Informed consent: Not applicable.
-
Ethical approval: The local Institutional Review Board deemed the study exempt from review.
References
1. External Cephalic Version. American college of obstetricians and gynecologists. Practice bulletin no. 221. Obstet Gynecol 2020;135:e203–12.10.1097/AOG.0000000000003837Search in Google Scholar PubMed
2. Atkinson, NL, Saperstein, SL, Pleis, J. Using the internet for health-related activities: findings from a national probability sample. J Med Internet Res 2009;11:e4. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1035.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
3. Hesse, BW, Moser, RP, Rutten, LJ, Kreps, GL. The health information national trends survey: research from the baseline. J Health Commun 2006;11:vii–xvi. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730600692553.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
4. McMullan, M. Patients using the internet to obtain health information: how this affects the patient-health professional relationship. Patient Educ Counsel 2006;63:24–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2005.10.006.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
5. Alexa. Top 500 websites on the internet [Online]. Available from http://www. alexa.com/topsites [Accessed 1 Nov 2021].Search in Google Scholar
6. The News minute. With 1.9 billion users, youtube streams 180 million hours to TV screens daily [Online]. Available from: https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/19-billion-users-youtube-streams-180-million-hours-tv-screens-daily [Accessed 1 Nov 2021].Search in Google Scholar
7. Searcher Behavior Research Update. Search engine watch [Online]. Available from: https://www.searchenginewatch.com/2006/04/10/searcher-behavior-research-update/ [Accessed 1 Nov 2021].Search in Google Scholar
8. iProspect search engine user behavior study. 2006 [Online]. Available from: http://district4.extension.ifas.ufl.edu/Tech/TechPubs/WhitePaper_2006_SearchEngineUserBehavior.pdf [Accessed 1 Nov 2021].Search in Google Scholar
9. Pandey, A, Patni, N, Singh, M, Sood, A, Singh, G. YouTube as a source of information on the H1N1 influenza pandemic. Am J Prev Med 2010;38:e1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2009.11.007.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
10. Steinberg, PL, Wason, S, Stern, JM, Deters, L, Kowal, B, Seigne, J. YouTube as source of prostate cancer information. Urology 2010;75:619–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2008.07.059.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
11. Knösel, M, Jung, K, Bleckmann, A. YouTube, dentistry, and dental education. J Dent 2011;75:1558–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.0022-0337.2011.75.12.tb05215.x.Search in Google Scholar
12. Singh, AG, Singh, S, Singh, PP. YouTube for information on rheumatoid arthritis — a wakeup call? J Rheumatol 2012;39:899–903. https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.111114.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
13. Garg, N, Venkatraman, A, Pandey, A, Kumar, N. YouTube as a source of information on dialysis: a content analysis. Nephrology 2015;20:315–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/nep.12397.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
14. Delli, K, Livas, C, Vissink, A, Spijkervet, FKL. Is Youtube useful as a source of information for Sjögren’s syndrome? Oral Dis 2016;22:196–201.10.1111/odi.12404Search in Google Scholar PubMed
15. Li, M, Yan, S, Yang, D, Li, B, Cui, W. YouTubeTM as a source of information on food poisoning. BMC Publ Health 2019;19:952. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7297-9.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
16. Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) for audiovisual materials. The agency for healthcare research and quality in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [Online]. Available from: https://www.ahrq.gov/health-literacy/patient-education/pemat.html [Accessed 1 Nov 2021].Search in Google Scholar
17. Çintesun, FNİ, Çintesun, E, Seçilmiş, Ö. YouTube as a source of information on gonadotropin self-injections. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2021;264:135–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2021.07.015.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
