Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.
Who will be affected?
Readers: No access to all 28 journals. We recommend accessing our articles via PubMed Central
Authors: No access to the submission form or your user account.
Reviewers: No access to your user account. Please download manuscripts you are reviewing for offline reading before Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 7:00 PM.
Editors: No access to your user account to assign reviewers or make decisions.
Copyeditors: No access to user account. Please download manuscripts you are copyediting before Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 7:00 PM.
YouTube videos as a source of information on basal cell carcinoma: An in-depth assessment of the quality, understandability, and reliability
Theresa Steeb;
Lydia Reinhardt;
Matthias Harlaß;
Markus Heppt;
Friedegund Meier;
Carola Berking
ABSTRACT
Background:
Skin cancer patients increasingly watch videos to acquire disease-related information. Until now, no scientific evaluation of the quality of videos available for German-speaking basal cell carcinoma patients has been performed.
Objective:
We aimed to identify and evaluate videos on basal cell carcinoma provided on YouTube.
Methods:
The first three pages on YouTube were searched for the German keywords “basal cell carcinoma” in July 2020. Two authors evaluated videos that met the predefined eligibility criteria. The quality of the information of the videos was evaluated using DISCERN and the Global Quality Scale (GQS). The understandability and actionability were assessed with the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT). The reliability was assessed with the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) score. Subgroup differences were identified by the Kruskal-Wallis test.
Results:
Forty-one videos were included in the evaluation. The average assessment scores, mean (SD), were as follows: DISCERN, 3.3 (0.80); GQS, 3.8 (1.1); JAMA, 27.74% (22.1%); understandability, 70.8% (13.3%), and actionability, 45.9% (43.7%); indicating medium to good quality and understandability, low actionability and poor reliability. The quality of videos provided by health professionals was significantly higher than that provided by laypersons.
Conclusions:
Optimization of the videos is desirable. In particular, adaptation to reliability criteria is necessary to support patient education and increase transparency.
Citation
Please cite as:
Steeb T, Reinhardt L, Harlaß M, Heppt M, Meier F, Berking C
Assessment of the Quality, Understandability, and Reliability of YouTube Videos as a Source of Information on Basal Cell Carcinoma: Web-Based Analysis