Global View on Monkeypox Epidemic: A Youtube Study

Year 2023, , 397 - 401, 31.12.2023

Edip Bayrak

https://doi.org/10.36516/jocass.1360835

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Amaç: Youtube'da Monkeypox ile ilgili videoların kalitesini, içeriğin doğruluğunu ve video özelliklerini çeşitli araçlar kullanarak değerlendirmeyi amaçladık.
Yöntemler: 22/05/2022 tarihinde YouTube™'da (http://www.youtube.com) Monkeypox ile ilgili videolar arandı. "Maymun çiçeği" arama terimi için alaka düzeyine göre sıralama yapıldıktan sonra ilk 200 video toplandı ve daha sonra değerlendirilmek üzere bir dosya olarak kaydedildi. Tarama geçmişi, önceki aramalardan etkilenmemesi için aramadan önce silindi. Videoların kalitesini değerlendirmek için Global Kalite Ölçeği (GQS) kullanıldı. P<0,05 değeri istatistiksel olarak anlamlı kabul edildi.
Bulgular: Video konularının ağırlıklı olarak semptomlar (%68,4), bulaşma (%48,5), tanımlar (%39,7) ve korunma (%33,8) ile ilgili olduğu ve video kaynaklarına gelince; Haber ajansları/TV kaynakları (106) en fazla videoyu yükledi. Videoların GQS ve Discern medyan değerleri sırasıyla 2 ve 3 olurken, faydalı videolar için 2 ve 3; ve yanıltıcı videolar için her ikisi de 1. Yanıltıcı videoların GQS ve Discern puanları anlamlı ve tutarlı bir şekilde düşüktü (1; p=0,001). Videoların çoğu ABD (64) kökenliydi. Kullanıcılar en faydalı ve yanıltıcı videoları ABD'den yüklerken, 17 farklı ülkeden yüklemeler yapıldı.
Sonuç: Tıbbi açıdan doğru ve kaliteli bilgiye ulaşmak için faydalı videoların tercih edilmesi gerekmektedir. Hekimler ve Bilimsel Dergiler gibi kaliteli video kaynaklarının, kullanıcıların faydalı/kaliteli bilgilere

Keywords

Maymun çiçeği; YoutubeTM; videolar; Küresel Kalite Ölçeği; kaliteli bilgi.

Global View on Monkeypox Epidemic: A Youtube Study

Abstract

Background: We aimed to evaluate the quality of the videos on Youtube about Monkeypox, the precision of the content, and the video features by using various tools.
Methods: Videos about Monkeypox were searched on YouTube™ (http://www.youtube.com) on 22/05/2022. After sorting by relevance for the search term "Monkeypox," the first 200 videos were recruited and saved as a file for later consideration. The browsing history was deleted before the search so that it would not be affected by previous searches. The Global Quality Scale (GQS) was used to evaluate the quality of the videos. A p value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results: Video topics were mainly about symptoms (68.4%), transmission (48.5%), definitions (39.7%), and prevention (33.8%), and as for the video sources; News agencies/ Tv sources (106) uploaded the most videos. While the GQS and Discern median values of the videos were 2 and 3, respectively, they were 2 and 3 for useful videos; and both 1 for misleading videos. Misleading videos had significantly and consistently lower GQS and Discern scores (1; p=0.001). Most of the videos were of USA (64) origin. While users upload the most useful and misleading videos from the USA, uploads were made from 17 different countries.
Conclusion: It is necessary to prefer useful videos for accessing medically accurate and quality information. Quality video sources such as Physicians and Scientific Journals should upload more videos to Youtube for users to access useful/quality information.

Keywords

MONKEYPOX, YOU TUBE, VİDEOS, THE GLOBAL QUALİTY SCALE, QUALİTY INFORMATION

References

• 1. Sklenovská N, Van Ranst M. Emergence of Monkeypox as the Most Important Orthopoxvirus Infection in Humans. Front Public Health. 2018;6:241. Published 2018 Sep 4. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2018.00241.
• 2. Nalca A, Rimoin AW, Bavari S, Whitehouse CA. Reemergence of monkeypox: prevalence, diagnostics, and countermeasures. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;41(12):1765-1771. doi:10.1086/498155.
• 3. Fenner F, Henderson DA, Arita I, Jezek Z, Ladnyi ID. Human monkeypox and other poxvirus infections of man. Smallpox and its Eradication. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 1988:1287-1320.
• 4. Toksoz A, Duran MB. Analysis of videos about vesicoureteral reflux on YouTube. J Pediatr Urol. 2021;17(6):858.e1-858.e6. doi:10.1016/j.jpurol.2021.10.006.
• 5. https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/news-events/monkeypox-situation-update#:~:text=Since%20the%20start%20of%20the,Western%20Balkan%20countries%20and%20Turkey. (ECDC. 2022. Access date:7 October 2022.)
• 6. Okyay RA, Bayrak E, Kaya E, Şahin AR, Koçyiğit BF, Avci A, et al. Another Epidemic in the Shadow of Covid 19 Pandemic: A Review of Monkeypox. EJMO 2022;6(2):95–99. doi: 10.14744/ejmo.2022.2022.
• 7. Rodríguez-Rey R, Garrido-Hernansaiz H, Collado S. Psychological Impact and Associated Factors During the Initial Stage of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic Among the General Population in Spain. Front Psychol. 2020;11:1540. Published 2020 Jun 23. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01540.
• 8. Drozd B, Couvillon E, Suarez A. Medical YouTube Videos and Methods of Evaluation: Literature Review. JMIR Med Educ. 2018;4(1):e3. Published 2018 Feb 12. doi:10.2196/mededu.8527.
• 9. Staunton PF, Baker JF, Green J, Devitt A. Online Curves: A Quality Analysis of Scoliosis Videos on YouTube. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40(23):1857-1861. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000001137.
• 10. Sahin M, Kaya E. Understandability and Actionability of Education Materials About Syphilis on YouTube. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 2022;1-7.
• 11. Kaya E, Sahin M. YouTube as a Source of Information About Air Pollution. Aerosol Sci Eng 2022;6: 155–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41810-022-00129-6.
• 12. Bernard A, Langille M, Hughes S, Rose C, Leddin D, Veldhuyzen van Zanten S. A systematic review of patient inflammatory bowel disease information resources on the World Wide Web. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102(9):2070-2077. doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01325.x.
• 13. Kocyigit BF, Nacitarhan V, Koca TT, Berk E. YouTube as a source of patient information for ankylosing spondylitis exercises. Clin Rheumatol. 2019;38(6):1747-1751. doi:10.1007/s10067-018-04413-0.
• 14. Singh AG, Singh S, Singh PP. YouTube for information on rheumatoid arthritis--a wakeup call?. J Rheumatol. 2012;39(5):899-903. doi:10.3899/jrheum.111114.
• 15. Khatri P, Singh SR, Belani NK, et al. YouTube as source of information on 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak: a cross sectional study of English and Mandarin content [published correction appears in Travel Med Infect Dis. 2020 Jul - Aug;36:101821]. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2020;35:101636. doi:10.1016/j.tmaid.2020.101636.
• 16. Bora K, Das D, Barman B, Borah P. Are internet videos useful sources of information during global public health emergencies? A case study of YouTube videos during the 2015-16 Zika virus pandemic. Pathog Glob Health. 2018;112(6):320-328. doi:10.1080/20477724.2018.1507784.
• 17. Pandey PN, Singh M, Sood A, Singh G. YouTube as a source of information on the H1N1 influenza pandemic. Am J Prev Med. 2010;38:e1–e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2009.11.007.
• 18. Shungu N, Haley SP, Berini CR, Foster D, Diaz VA. Quality of YouTube Videos on Prostate Cancer Screening for Black Men. J Am Board Fam Med. 2021 Jul-Aug;34(4):724-731. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2021.04.200632.
• 19. Villafañe JH, Cantero-Tellez R, Valdes K, Usuelli FG, Berjano P. Educational Quality of YouTube Videos in Thumb Exercises for Carpometacarpal Osteoarthritis: A Search on Current Practice. Hand (N Y). 2018 Nov;13(6):715-719. doi: 10.1177/1558944717726139.
• 20. Şahin A, Şahin M, Türkcü FM. YouTube as a source of information in retinopathy of prematurity. Ir J Med Sci. 2019 May;188(2):613-617. doi: 10.1007/s11845-018-1902-2.