Should Google Videos on Pressure Sore Care be Recommended?

Year 2023, Volume: 49 Issue: 3, 405 - 410, 31.12.2023

Aytül Coşar Ertem Uğur Ertem

https://doi.org/10.32708/uutfd.1380462

Abstract

In this study, we aimed to evaluate the quality and reliability of Google videos in pressure sore care. On October 12, 2023, we searched the keywords "pressure sore care", "bed sore care", "pressure ulcer care", and "pressure injury care" in the Google videos section. The first 25 videos that appeared in the search results for each keyword were evaluated. Modified DISCERN (Mdiscern) and Global Quality Score (GQS) were used to evaluate the quality and reliability of the videos. Of the 100 videos scanned, 49 (49%) were included in the statistical analysis. According to the statistical analysis results, we found that 42.86% of the videos were of medium quality and 55.10% were of high reliability. In terms of video upload source, it was determined that most of the videos with high quality and reliability were uploaded by healthcare professionals (p = 0.001). According to the results of the current study, it was determined that most of the videos on pressure sore care on Google were of medium quality and nearly half of the videos had low reliability. Sharing more videos on video sharing platforms (YouTube, Google, Tiktok etc.) by healthcare professionals in the future may be effective in increasing video quality and reliability. We also think that it may be appropriate to recommend the content in Google videos to patients as a source of health-related information, based on certain selective characteristics and the physician's evaluation.

Keywords

Pressure sore, wound care, social media

Project Number

Yok

Bası Yarası Bakımına İlişkin Google Videoları Önerilmeli mi?

Abstract

Bu çalışmada bası yarası bakımında Google videolarının kalitesini ve güvenilirliğini değerlendirmeyi amaçladık. 12 Ekim 2023'de Google videolar kısmında "bası yarası bakımı", "yatak yarası bakımı", "basınç ülseri bakımı", ve "basınç yaralanması bakımı" anahtar kelimelerini aradık. Her bir anahtar kelime ile arama sonucu ilk çıkan 25 video değerlendirildi. Videoların kalitesini ve güvenilirliğini değerlendirmek için Modifiye DISCERN (Mdiscern) ve Küresel Kalite Skoru (GQS) kullanıldı. Taranan 100 videodan 49'u (%49) istatistiksel analize dahil edildi. İstatistiksel analiz sonuçlarına göre videoların %42.86’sının orta kalitede ve %55.10’unun yüksek güvenilirliğe sahip olduğunu saptadık. Video yükleme kaynağı açısından bakıldığında kalitesi ve güvenilirliği yüksek videoların çoğunun sağlık profesyonelleri tarafından yüklendiği belirlendi (p=0.001). Mevcut çalışma sonuçlarına göre, Google'da yer alan bası yarası bakımı ile ilgili videoların çoğunun orta kalitede olduğu ve videoların yarısına yakınının düşük güvenilirliğe sahip olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Gelecekte sağlık profesyonellerinin video paylaşım platformlarında (YouTube, Google, Tiktok vb.) içerik üretmeleri, video kalitesinin ve güvenilirliğinin artmasında etkili olacaktır. Ayrıca hastalara sağlıkla ilgili bilgi kaynağı olarak Google videolar kısmındaki içeriklerin önerilmesinin belli seçici özelliklere göre ve hekimin değerlendirmesine göre uygun olabileceğini düşünüyoruz.

Keywords

Bası yarası, yara bakımı, sosyal medya

Ethical Statement

Bu çalışmada insan veya hayvan denek kullanılmadığından ve internet üzerinden Google videolar gibi herkesin ücretsiz ulaşabildiği bir platformdaki videolar incelendiği için daha önceki benzer yapılan çalışmalarda da olduğu gibi etik kurul onayı gerekmemektedir.

Supporting Institution

Yok

Project Number

Yok

Thanks

Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi Biyoistatistik Anabilim Dalından Aslı Ceren Macunluoğlu'na istatistiksel analizler konusundaki desteklerinden dolayı teşekkür ederiz.

References

• 1. Mervis JS, Phillips TJ. Pressure ulcers: Pathophysiology, epidemiology, risk factors, and presentation. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Oct;81(4):881-90.
• 2. Edsberg LE, Black JM, Goldberg M, et al. Revised National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel Pressure Injury Staging System: Revised Pressure Injury Staging System. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2016 Nov/Dec;43(6):585-97.
• 3. Loerakker S, Manders E, Strijkers GJ, et al. The effects of deformation, ischemia, and reperfusion on the development of muscle damage during prolonged loading. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2011 Oct;111(4):1168-77.
• 4. Leblebici B, Turhan N, Adam M, Akman MN. Clinical and epidemiologic evaluation of pressure ulcers in patients at a university hospital in Turkey. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2007 Jul-Aug;34(4):407-11.
• 5. Vangilder C, Macfarlane GD, Meyer S. Results of nine international pressure ulcer prevalence surveys: 1989 to 2005. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2008 Feb;54(2):40-54.
• 6. Baharestani MM, Ratliff CR. Pressure ulcers in neonates and children: an NPUAP white paper. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2007 Apr;20(4):208,210,212,214,216,218-20.
• 7. Kallman U, Hommel A, Risberg MB, et al. Pressure ulcer prevalence and prevention interventions - A ten-year nationwide survey in Sweden. Int Wound J. 2022 Nov;19(7):1736-47.
• 8. Li Z, Lin F, Thalib L, Chaboyer W. Global prevalence and incidence of pressure injuries in hospitalised adult patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2020 May:105:103546.
• 9. Serrano ML, Gonzalez Mendez MI, Carrasco Cebollero FM, Lima Rodriguez JS. Risk factors for pressure ulcer development in Intensive Care Units: A systematic review. Med Intensiva. 2017 Aug-Sep;41(6):339-46.
• 10. Tayyib N, Coyer F. Effectiveness of Pressure Ulcer Prevention Strategies for Adult Patients in Intensive Care Units: A Systematic Review. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2016 Dec;13(6):432-44.
• 11. Paker N, Buğdaycı D, Gökşenoğlu G, Akbaş D, Korkut T. Recurrence rate after pressure ulcer reconstruction in patients with spinal cord injury in patients under control by a plastic surgery and physical medicine and rehabilitation team. Turk J Phys Med Rehabil. 2018 Nov 6;64(4):322-7.
• 12. Gedde MH, Lilleberg HS, Aßmus J, Gilhus NE, Rekand T. Traumatic vs non-traumatic spinal cord injury: A comparison of primary rehabilitation outcomes and complications during hospitalization. J Spinal Cord Med. 2019 Nov;42(6):695-701.
• 13. Jaul E. Assessment and management of pressure ulcers in the elderly: current strategies. Drugs Aging. 2010 Apr 1;27(4):311-25.
• 14. Sumarno AS. Pressure ulcers: the core, care and cure approach. Br J Community Nurs. 2019 Dec 1;24(Sup12):S38-S42.
• 15. Antony L, Thelly AS, Mathew JM. Evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Caregivers of Palliative Care Patients on the Prevention of Pressure Ulcer. Indian J Palliat Care. 2023 Jan-Mar;29(1):75-81.
• 16. Vance K, Howe W, Dellavalle RP. Social internet sites as a source of public health information. Dermatol Clin. 2009 Apr;27(2):133-6.
• 17. Stuart P. Health literacy: a study of internet-based information on advance directives. Nurs Manag (Harrow). 2017 Nov 28;24(8):27-33.
• 18. Alibudbud R. Google Trends for health research: Its advantages, application, methodological considerations, and limitations in psychiatric and mental health infodemiology. Front Big Data. 2023 Mar 27:6:1132764.
• 19. Yıldız MS. Google search trends: an application for health services related queries in Turkey. International Journal of Health Management and Strategies Research 2018;4(2):168-79.
• 20. Bahar-Ozdemir Y, Ozsoy-Unubol T, Akyuz G. Is YouTube a high-quality source of information on cancer rehabilitation?. J Cancer Surviv 2022;16:1016-22.
• 21. Onder ME, Zengin O. YouTube as a source of information on gout: a quality analysis. Rheumatol Int 2021;41:1321-8.
• 22. Leong AY, Sanghera R, Jhajj J, et al. Is YouTube useful as a source of health information for adults with type 2 diabetes? A South Asian perspective. Can J Diabetes 2018;42:395-403.e4.
• 23. 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;53:105-11.
• 24. Langford B, Hooten WM, D'Souza S, Moeschler S, D'Souza RS. YouTube as a source of medical information about spinal cord stimulation. Neuromodulation 2021;24:156-61.
• 25. Yildiz S, Zer Toros S. The Quality, Reliability, and Popularity of YouTube Education Videos for Vestibular Rehabilitation: A Cross-sectional Study. Otol Neurotol. 2021 Sep 1;42(8):e1077-e1083.
• 26. Ovenden CD, Brooks FM. Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion YouTube Videos as a Source of Patient Education. Asian Spine J. 2018 Dec;12(6):987-91.
• 27. Madathil KC, Rivera-Rodriguez AJ, Greenstein JS, Gramopadhye AK. Healthcare information on YouTube: A systematic review. Health Informatics J. 2015 Sep;21(3):173-94.
• 28. Ozsoy-Unubol T, Alanbay-Yagci E. YouTube as a source of information on fibromyalgia. Int J Rheum Dis. 2021 Feb;24(2):197-202.
• 29. Aksoy M, Topsakal KG. YouTube™ for information on paediatric oral health instructions. Int J Dent Hyg. 2022 Aug;20(3):496-503.
• 30. Chan C, Sounderajah V, Daniels E, et al. The Reliability and Quality of YouTube Videos as a Source of Public Health Information Regarding COVID-19 Vaccination: Cross-sectional Study. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2021 Jul 8;7(7):e29942.
• 31. Kim KY, Jang CW, Chung SY, et al. Usefulness of YouTube in Sharing Information about New Gene Therapy for Spinal Muscular Atrophy: A Content Analysis. Healthcare (Basel). 2023 Jan 3;11(1):147.
• 32. Sun F, Zheng S, Wu J. Quality of Information in Gallstone Disease Videos on TikTok: Cross-sectional Study. J Med Internet Res. 2023 Feb 8:25:e39162.