A Qualitative Content Analysis of YouTube Comments on Videos Retrieved via Search Terms from People Who Stutter and Their Relatives

Year 2026, Volume: 13 Issue: 1 , 286 - 302 , 30.04.2026

Halil Tayyip Uysal , Ayşegül Sarı Sülüker , Mariam Kavakcı , Ayşen Köse

https://doi.org/10.21020/husbfd.1725773

https://izlik.org/JA52AU75ZT

Abstract

Objectives: Social media platforms serve as interactive spaces for disseminating health-related information, including speech and language disorders such as stuttering. Prior studies have examined the quality of YouTube videos on stuttering and provided recommendations for their judicious use. This study aimed to conduct a qualitative content analysis of comments on YouTube videos about stuttering, accessed using search terms reported by People Who Stutter (PWS) and their families.
Materials and Methods: To simulate YouTube search behavior of PWS or relatives, Zoom interviews were conducted with 28 Turkish-speaking participants, yielding eighteen search terms (e.g., "cure of stuttering," "stuttering in children"). Using an anonymous account, 1320 videos were identified from the first three pages; purposive sampling excluded commercial/duplicates/non-Turkish/irrelevant/disabled-comment videos, resulting in 194 videos. The comments underwent qualitative content analysis via MAXQDA: Functional words removed, frequency analysis for >50 occurrences, variations unified into codes, organized into themes.
Results: A qualitative content analysis of comments from 194 YouTube videos yielded 48 codes organized under six overarching themes: definition of stuttering, individuals, interventions, listener reactions, settings, and psychological factors. The findings revealed a diverse range of comments encountered by PWS on YouTube, spanning from defining stuttering to soliciting assistance and sharing personal experiences.
Conclusion: Speech-language pathologists and health institutions must monitor YouTube content to counteract misinformation and provide evidence-based guidance. Proactive engagement is essential to address the specific emotional needs of families, ensure accurate awareness, and protect clinical intervention processes from misleading claims within the diverse digital discourse surrounding stuttering experiences.

Keywords

Content analysis , people who stutter , video comments , YouTube

References

• Akram, S., Abbas, I., & Waleed, J. (2022). A descriptive study of portrayal of speech and language disorders in YouTube videos. Competitive Social Science Research Journal, 3(2), 708–719.
• Azios, M., Rangarathnam, B., Jianyuan, N., Irani, F., Bellon-Harn, M., & Manchaiah, V. (2022). Twitter usage about stuttering. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 7(6), 1757–1768. https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_PERSP-21-00213
• Bellon-Harn, M. L., Morris, L. R., Manchaiah, V., & Harn, W. E. (2020). Use of videos and digital media in parent-implemented interventions for parents of children with primary speech sound and/or language disorders: A scoping review. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 29(12), 3596–3608. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-020-01842-x
• Boyle, M. P., Dioguardi, L., & Pate, J. E. (2016). A comparison of three strategies for reducing the public stigma associated with stuttering. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 50, 44–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2016.09.004
• Cavdar, D., Dolek, M., & Oguz, O. (2025). How reliable and useful are social media videos about stuttering? A comprehensive evaluation of content and credibility. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 84, 106116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2025.106116
• Desai, T., Shariff, A., Dhingra, V., Minhas, D., Eure, M., & Kats, M. (2013). Is content really king? An objective analysis of the public’s response to medical videos on YouTube. PLoS ONE, 8(12), e82469. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0082469
• de Souza, G. C. A., & da Silva Falcão, F. (2021). Stuttering and the use of Facebook as a tool for interaction between people who stutter: A content analysis. In Pereira, L., Carvalho, J., Krus, P., Klofsten, M., & De Negri, V. (Eds.), Proceedings of IDEAS 2019. IDEAS 2018. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies (Vol. 198). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55374-6_17
• Donaher, J., & Minkoff, C. (2014). The portrayal of stuttering on YouTube. Perspectives on Fluency and Fluency Disorders, 24(1), 20–25. https://doi.org/10.1044/ffd24.1.20
• Elo, S., & Kyngas, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
• Finn, P. (2019). The impact of social media on communication sciences and disorders: A need for examination and research. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 4(2), 224–227. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_PERS-ST-2019-0001
• Forman, J., & Damschroder, L. (2007). Qualitative content analysis. In L. Jacoby & L. A. Siminoff (Eds.), Empirical methods for bioethics: A primer (pp. 39–62). Emerald Group.
• Househ, M., Borycki, E., & Kushniruk, A. (2014). Empowering patients through social media: The benefits and challenges. Health Informatics Journal, 20(1), 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458213476969
• Jokar, A. H. R., Roche, S., & Karimi, H. (2023). Stuttering on Instagram: What is the focus of stuttering-related Instagram posts and how do users engage with them?. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 78, 106021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2023.106021
• Kuckartz, U., & Rädiker, S. (2019). Analyzing qualitative data with MAXQDA (pp. 1-290). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
• Leko Krhen, A., & Šušak, L. (2023). Internet searches conducted by people who stutter: Association with speech-language therapy and severity of stuttering. Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocology, 48(3), 146–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/14015439.2022.2044513
• Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Establishing trustworthiness. Naturalistic Inquiry, 289(331), 289–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8
• Louis, K. O. S., Irani, F., Gabel, R. M., Hughes, S., Langevin, M., Rodriguez, M., & Weidner, M. E. (2017). Evidence-based guidelines for being supportive of people who stutter in North America. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 53, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2017.05.002
• Merchant, R. M., & Asch, D. A. (2018). Protecting the value of medical science in the age of social media and “fake news”. JAMA, 320(23), 2415–2416. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.18416
• McNab, C. (2009). What social media offers to health professionals and citizens. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 87, 566. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.09.066712
• Moorhead, S. A., Hazlett, D. E., Harrison, L., Carroll, J. K., Irwin, A., & Hoving, C. (2013). A new dimension of health care: systematic review of the uses, benefits, and limitations of social media for health communication. Journal of medical Internet research, 15(4), e1933.
• Ozdemir, S., & Tuysuz, S. (2025). A Qualitative Study on the Representation of Stuttering in Turkish National Corpus. Dil Konuşma ve Yutma Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(3), 347-372.
• Raj, E. X., & Daniels, D. E. (2017). Psychosocial support for adults who stutter: Exploring the role of online communities. Speech, Language and Hearing, 20(3), 144–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/2050571X.2016.1253533
• Stern, M. J., Bilgen, I., McClain, C., & Hunscher, B. (2017). Effective sampling from social media sites and search engines for web surveys: Demographic and data quality differences in surveys of Google and Facebook users. Social Science Computer Review, 35(6), 713–732. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439316683344
• Watters, J. K., & Biernacki, P. (1989). Targeted sampling: Options for the study of hidden populations. Social Problems, 36(4), 416–430. https://doi.org/10.2307/800824
• Yasar, O. C., Birol, N. Y., & Erensoy, I. (2021). Kekemelik hakkında bilgi kaynağı olarak YouTube [YouTube as a source of information about stuttering]. Hacettepe University Faculty of Health Sciences Journal, 8(3), 637–654. https://doi.org/10.21020/husbfd.1003813