Dental Sedasyonla İlgili YoutubeTM Videolarının Bilgi Kalitesinin Değerlendirilmesi

Year 2022, Volume: 11 Issue: 3, 262 - 269, 19.09.2022

Mehmet Emin Toprak , Necmiye Şengel , Bedreddin Cavlı

https://doi.org/10.54617/adoklinikbilimler.1138672

Abstract

Amaç:Dental sedasyonla ilgili YouTubeTM video içeriklerinin kalitesini değerlendirmeyi amaçladık.
Gereç ve Yöntem:YouTubeTM internet sitesinde 27 Aralık 2020 tarihinden önce yayınlanan dental sedasyon ile ilgili videolar araştırmacılar tarafından bağımsız olarak değerlendirilmiştir. Araştırmaya dahil etme ve hariç tutma kriterlerine göre uygun videolar belirlenmiş, her video ile ilgili tüm veriler kaydedilmiştir. Dahil edilen videolar standartlaştırılmış kalite kriterlerine göre değerlendirilmiştir.
Bulgular:Değerlendirilen ilk 202 videodan 106'sı çalışmaya dahil edilmiştir. Videoların çoğunun sağlık profesyonellerinin yayınladığı videolar olduğu görülmüştür (%88.68). Değerlendirme kriterlerine göre 15 videonun video içeriklerinin zayıf (%14.15), 81'inin orta (%76.42) ve 10 videonun (%9,43) mükemmel olduğu belirlenmiştir. Videoların içerik kalitesi ile etkileşim indeksi (p=0.108) ve izlenme oranları (p=0.302) arasında anlamlı bir ilişki olmadığı; video kaynakları arasında, önemli ölçüde kalite farkı olduğu görülmüştür (p=0 .013).
Sonuç:YouTubeTM'daki dental sedasyon prosedürleriyle ilgili videolar tedavinin bazı önemli yönlerini kapsamakta; risk, kontrendikasyonlar, maliyet gibi veriler genel olarak yetersiz paylaşılmaktadır. Dünya genelinde sıklıkla erişilen YouTubeTM'un özellikle tıbbi prosedürlerle ilgili içerikler için doğru bilgiler vermesi ve bu videolar için bazı filtreleme seçenekleri sunması için sağlık profesyonelleri ile birlikte çalışması gerektiği çalışmamızda görülmüştür.

Keywords

Dental Sedasyon, YoutubeTM, Bilgi Kalitesi

Quality of Information in YoutubeTM Videos on Dental Sedation

Abstract

Aim:We aimed to identify and analyze the quality of YouTubeTM videos on dental sedation.
Materials and Methods:YouTube website was independently searched by researchers for videos on dental sedation published before December 27, 2020. Appropriate videos were determined according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the research. All data about each video was recorded. Included videos were classified according to standardized quality criteria.
Results:106 of the first 202 videos reached were included in the study. Most of the videos were from health professionals (88.68%). It was determined that the video contents of 15 videos were poor (14.15%), 81 moderate (76.42%), and 10 excellent (9.43%). There was no significant relationship between the content quality of the videos and the interaction index (p=0.108) and viewing rates (p=0.302). Significantly greater quality difference was seen between video sources (p= .013)
Conclusions: The videos on YouTubeTM about dental sedation procedures cover some important aspects of treatment; however, data such as risk, contraindications, and cost are shared insufficiently in general. YouTubeTM, which is accessed frequently around the world, needs to work with healthcare professionals to provide accurate information, especially for content related to medical procedures, and offer some filtering options for these videos.

Keywords

Dental sedation, information, internet, YouTubeTM

References

• 1.Craig DC, Wildsmith JAW. Conscious sedation for dentistry: an update. Br Dent J, 2007;203:629-31.
• 2.Licheri L, Erriu M, Bryant V, Piras V. A Clinical Audit of Escorts' Awareness And Patients' Safety Following Intravenous Sedation In Adult Oral Surgery. SAAD Dig 2016;32:17-22.
• 3.Boyle CA, Newton T, Milgrom P. Who is referred for sedation for dentistry and why? Br Dent J 2009;206:12.
• 4.Whitaker EE, Mukherjee A, Liu T, Hong B, Heitmiller E. Introduction to moderate and deep sedation.Urman RD, Kaye AD, Editörs. Moderate and Deep Sedation in Clinical Practice, Cambridge University Press; 2012. p.1-7.
• 5.Coulter A, Entwistle V, Gilbert D. Sharing decisions with patients: is the information good enough? BMJ 1999;318:318-22.
• 6.Goold SD, Lipkin Jr M. The doctor–patient relationship: challenges, opportunities, and strategies. J Gen Intern Med 1999;14:26-33.
• 7.Riordain RN, Hodgson T. Content and quality of website information on the treatment of oral ulcers. Br Dent J 2014;217:15
• 8.Eysenbach G, Powell J, Kuss O, Sa ER. Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a systematic review. JAMA 2002;287:2691-700. 9.Ostler S, Kiyak HA. Treatment expectations versus outcomes among orthognathic surgery patients. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1991;6:247-55.
• 10.Grünloh C, Myreteg G, Cajander Å, Rexhepi H. “Why do they need to check me?” patient participation through eHealth and the doctor-patient relationship: qualitative study. J Med Internet Res 2018;20:8444.
• 11.Brooks FM, Lawrence H, Jones A, McCarthy MJH. YouTube™ as a source of patient information for lumbar discectomy. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2014;96:144-6.
• 12.Loeb S, Sengupta S, Butaney M, Macaluso Jr JN, Czarniecki SW, Robbins R, et all. Dissemination of misinformative and biased information about prostate cancer on YouTube. Eur Urol 2019;75:564-7.
• 13.Sahin AN, Sahin AS, Schwenter F, Sebajang H. YouTube videos as a source of information on colorectal cancer: what do our patients learn? J Cancer Educ 2019;34:1160-6.
• 14.Knösel M, Jung K, Bleckmann A. YouTube, dentistry, and dental education. J Dent Educ 2011;75:1558-68.
• 15.Hegarty E, Campbell C, Grammatopoulos E, DiBiase AT, Sherriff M, Cobourne MT. YouTube™ as an information resource for orthognathic surgery. J Orthod 2017;44:90-6.
• 16.Gaş S, Zincir ÖÖ, Bozkurt AP. Are YouTube videos useful for patients interested in botulinum toxin for bruxism? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019;77:1776-83.
• 17.Desai T, Shariff A, Dhingra V, Minhas D, Eure M, Kats M. Is content really king? An objective analysis of the public's response to medical videos on YouTube. PLoS One 2013;8:824-69. 18.Lau AY, Gabarron E, Fernandez-Luque L, Armayones M. Social media in health—what are the safety concerns for health consumers? Health Inf Manag 2012;41:30-5.
• 19.Lau AY, Kwok TMY, Coiera E. How online crowds influence the way individual consumers answer health questions. Appl Clin Inform 2011;2:177-89.
• 20.Strychowsky JE, Nayan S, Farrokhyar F, MacLean J. YouTube: a good source of information on pediatric tonsillectomy? Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2013;77, 972-5. 21.Heggie C, McKernon SL, Gartshore L. Quality of available internet information regarding IV sedation for dental treatment. Br Dent J 2020;228:279-82.
• 22.Yagiz O, Yavuz GY, Keskinruzgar A, Acibadem E. Analyses of Youtube Videos on Botox Treatment of Gummy Smile. J Craniofac Surg 2021; Nov 12. ‘in press’.
• 23.Brooks FM, Lawrence H, Jones A, McCarthy MJH. YouTube™ as a source of patient information for lumbar discectomy. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2014;96:144-6.
• 24.Delli K, Livas C, Vissink A, Spijkervet FK. Is YouTube useful as a source of information for Sjögren's syndrome?. Oral Dis 2016;22:196-201.
• 25.Hassona Y, Taimeh D, Marahleh A, Scully C. YouTube as a source of information on mouth (oral) cancer. Oral Dis 2016;22:202-8.
• 26.Almarghoub MA, Alghareeb MA, Alhammad AK, Alotaibi HF, Kattan AE. Plastic surgery on YouTube. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2020;8:2586.
• 27.Lena Y, Dindaroğlu F. Lingual orthodontic treatment: a YouTube™ video analysis. Angle Orthod 2018;88:208-14.
• 28.Nason K, Donnelly A, Duncan HF. YouTube as a patient‐information source for root canal treatment. Int Endod J 2016;49:1194-200. 29.Bezner SK, Hodgman EI, Diesen DL, Clayton JT, Minkes RK, Langer JC, et all. Pediatric surgery on YouTube™: is the truth out there? J Pediatr Surg 2014;49:586-9.
• 30.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;53:105-111.