YouTube’daki Vajinit Videolarının Kalitesi ve Hasta Eğitimi Değeri: Bir İçerik Analizi

Year 2026, Volume: 9 Issue: 1, 71 - 75, 17.03.2026

Mücahit Furkan Balcı , Celal Akdemir , Fatih Yıldırım

https://doi.org/10.36516/jocass.1802308

https://izlik.org/JA49RT28AF

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışma, YouTube’da en çok izlenen vajinit videolarının içeriğini, özelliklerini ve kalitesini değerlendirerek doğruluk düzeylerini ve hasta eğitimi açısından potansiyel rollerini incelemeyi amaçladı.
Gereç ve Yöntem: 26 Aralık 2025’te yeni oluşturulan bir YouTube hesabıyla “vajinit” ve “vajinal enfeksiyon” aramaları yapıldı. İlk 100 video tarandı; İngilizce dışı dilde olması, görsel-işitsel içerik içermemesi veya tekrar olması nedeniyle 53 video çıkarılarak 47 video analiz edildi. Videolar içerik türüne (hastalık açıklaması, tedavi, kişisel deneyim, diğer) ve yükleyiciye (akademisyen, hekim, paramedik, ticari, hasta) göre sınıflandırıldı; yükleyiciler ayrıca tıbbi ve tıbbi olmayan gruplara ayrıldı. İzlenme sayısı, beğeni sayısı, beğeni/izlenme oranı, 1000 izlenme başına oran, Video Güç İndeksi (VPI) ve kalite puanları kaydedildi. Veriler Mann–Whitney U testi ve Fisher’s exact testi ile analiz edildi; değerlendiriciler arası uyum ICC ile hesaplandı.
Bulgular: Videoların %72,3’ü hastalık açıklamasına, %12,8’i diğer konulara, %10,6’sı kişisel deneyimlere, %4,3’ü koruyucu önlemlere odaklandı. Yükleyicilerin %46,8’i hekim, %27,7’si akademisyen, %12,8’i ticari kaynak, %8,5’i hasta, %4,3’ü paramedik idi. Medyan izlenme sayısı 55.337 (aralık: 581–11.041.478), medyan beğeni sayısı 402 (aralık: 11–295.000) idi. VPI, profesyonel ve profesyonel olmayan kaynaklar arasında anlamlı fark göstermedi (6,06 ± 30,80 vs. 2,29 ± 4,53; p=0,451), ancak kalite puanı profesyonel kaynaklarda daha yüksekti (9,70 ± 4,03 vs. 6,20 ± 2,39; p=0,014). 2021 ve sonrası yüklenen videoların VPI değeri daha yüksekti (0,556 vs. 0,114; p=0,003), kalite puanı ise benzerdi (p=0,083).
Sonuç: YouTube’daki vajinit videoları çoğunlukla tanımlara odaklanmakta, korunma ve kişisel bakım konularında sınırlı bilgi sunmaktadır. Profesyonel içerikler daha yüksek kalite sunsa da etkileşim metrikleri güvenilirlikle ilişkili değildir. Uzman içeriklerinin teşviki ve otomatik kalite kontrol sistemlerinin uygulanması gerekmektedir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Vajinit, Vajinal enfeksiyon, YouTube,

Keywords

Vajinit , YouTube , Eğitim

Ethical Statement

Bu çalışma doğrudan insan denekleri içermemektedir. Bununla birlikte, çevrimiçi bir anket aracılığıyla uzman görüşleri elde edilmiştir. Katılım gönüllülük esasına dayanmaktadır ve bilgilendirilmiş onam, anketin tamamlanmasıyla zımnen verilmiş kabul edilmiştir. Çalışma müdahale içermediğinden etik kurul onayı gerekmemiştir.

Supporting Institution

Yazarlar bu çalışma için herhangi bir özel finansman/fon desteği almamıştır.

Project Number

12101044

Thanks

Bu çalışmaya değerli katkılarından ötürü Büşra Atila Balcı’ya teşekkür ederim

Quality and Patient Education Value of Vaginitis Videos on YouTube: A Content Analysis

https://izlik.org/JA49RT28AF

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the content, characteristics, and quality of the most-viewed YouTube videos on vaginitis, assessing their accuracy and potential role in patient education.
Materials and Methods: On December 26, 2025, a new YouTube account was used to search “vaginitis” and “vaginal infection.” The first 100 videos were screened; 53 were excluded due to non-English language, lack of audiovisual content, or duplication, leaving 47 videos for analysis. Videos were categorized by content (disease explanation, treatment, personal experiences, other) and by uploader (academic, physician, paramedic, commercial, patient), further grouped as medical vs. non-medical. Video metrics (views, likes, like-to-view ratio, views per 1,000, Video Power Index [VPI]) and quality scores were recorded. Data were analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U and Fisher’s exact tests; interrater reliability was assessed with ICC.
Results: Of the videos, 72.3% covered disease explanations, 12.8% other topics, 10.6% personal experiences, and 4.3% preventive measures. Uploaders were physicians (46.8%), academics (27.7%), commercial sources (12.8%), patients (8.5%), and paramedics (4.3%). Median views were 55,337 (range: 581–11,041,478), median likes were 402 (range: 11–295,000). VPI did not differ significantly between professional and non-professional sources (6.06 ± 30.80 vs. 2.29 ± 4.53; p=0.451), but quality scores were higher for professional sources (9.70 ± 4.03 vs. 6.20 ± 2.39; p=0.014). Videos uploaded in 2021 or later had higher VPI than earlier ones (0.556 vs. 0.114; p=0.003), with no significant difference in quality (p=0.083).
Conclusion: Most YouTube videos on vaginitis focus on definitions, with limited guidance on prevention or self-care. While professional sources provide higher-quality content, engagement metrics do not correlate with reliability. Promotion of expert-led videos and automated quality control measures is warranted.
Keywords: Vaginitis, Vaginal infection, YouTube,

Keywords

Vaginitis , YouTube , Education

Ethical Statement

This study did not involve human subjects directly. However, expert opinions were obtained via an online survey. Participation was voluntary, and informed consent was implied by completion of the survey. Ethics committee approval was not required due to the non-interventional nature of the study.

Supporting Institution

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Project Number

12101044

Thanks

I would like to thank Büşra Atila Balcı for her valuable contributions to this study.

References

• Neal CM, Kus LH, Eckert LO, Peipert JF. Noncandidal vaginitis: a comprehensive approach to diagnosis and management. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;222(2):114-122. Crossref
• Muzny CA, Kardas P. A narrative review of current challenges in the diagnosis and management of bacterial vaginosis. Sex Transm Dis. 2020;47(7):441-446. Crossref
• Nyirjesy P, Banker WM, Bonus TM. Physician awareness and adherence to clinical practice guidelines in the diagnosis of vaginitis patients: a retrospective chart review. Popul Health Manag. 2020;23(Suppl 1):S13-S21. Crossref
• Rigo GV, Tasca T. Vaginitis: review on drug resistance. Curr Drug Targets. 2020;21(16):1672-1686. Crossref
• Juliana NCA, Suiters MJM, Al-Nasiry S, Morré SA, Peters RPH, Ambrosino E. The association between vaginal microbiota dysbiosis, bacterial vaginosis, and aerobic vaginitis, and adverse pregnancy outcomes of women living in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. Front Public Health. 2020;8:567885. Crossref
• Madathil KC, Rivera-Rodriguez AJ, Greenstein JS, Gramopadhye AK. Healthcare information on YouTube: a systematic review. Health Informatics J. 2015;21(3):173-194. Crossref
• Osman W, Mohamed F, Elhassan M, Shoufan A. Is YouTube a reliable source of health-related information? A systematic review. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22(1):382. Crossref
• Hegarty E, Campbell C, Grammatopoulos E, DiBiase AT, Sherriff M, Cobourne MT. YouTube™ as an information resource for orthognathic surgery. J Orthod. 2017;44(2):90-96. Crossref
• Lee KN, Joo YJ, Choi SY, Park ST, Lee KY, Kim Y, et al. Content analysis and quality evaluation of cesarean delivery-related videos on YouTube: cross-sectional study. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(7):e24994. Crossref
• Park Y, Kim SH, Yoon HJ. Quality controlled YouTube content intervention for enhancing health literacy and health behavioural intention: a randomized controlled study. Digit Health. 2024;10:20552076241263691. Crossref
• Helming AG, Adler DS, Keltner C, Igelman AD, Woodworth GE. The content quality of YouTube videos for professional medical education: a systematic review. Acad Med. 2021;96(10):1484-1493. Crossref
• Aglamis SO, Senel S, Koudonas A. Quality analysis of YouTube videos on vulvodynia. Sex Med. 2023;11(1):qfac013. Crossref
• Khalil M, Mohamed F, Shoufan A. Evaluating the quality of medical content on YouTube using large language models. Sci Rep. 2025;15(1):9906. Crossref
• Kara M, Ozduran E, Mercan Kara M, Hanci V, Erkin Y. Assessing the quality and reliability of YouTube videos as a source of information on inflammatory back pain. PeerJ. 2024;12:e17215. Crossref
• Bitzenbauer P, Höfler S, Veith JM, Winkler B, Zenger T, Kulgemeyer C. Exploring the relationship between surface features and explaining quality of YouTube explanatory videos. Int J Sci Math Educ. 2024;22:25-48. Crossref
• Xiao X, Wong RM, Yang W. Effectiveness of video-based health promotion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Patient Educ Couns. 2024;119:108095. Crossref
• Worrall B, Nassour AJ, Zhuo K, Alvarado MP, Chung A. YouTube and UTIs: what is online video content teaching our patients? Urogynecology (Phila). 2025 Mar 19. Crossref
• Liu X, Zhang B, Susarla A, Padman R. YouTube for patient education: a deep learning approach for understanding medical knowledge from user-generated videos. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.03179. 2018.
• Tanner JP, Takats C, Lathan HS, Kwan A, Wormer R, Romero D, et al. Approaches to research ethics in health research on YouTube: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25:e43060. Crossref