Evaluating Content, Quality, and Adequacy of Maxillofacial Trauma Videos on YouTube

Year 2024, Volume: 6 Issue: 1, 1 - 12, 30.04.2024

Alperen Tekin , Ayşe Nur Temel , Yelda Erdem Hepşenoğlu

https://doi.org/10.51122/neudentj.2024.83

Abstract

Aim:
The study aimed to analyze the content, quality and adequacy of information on YouTube videos regarding maxillofacial trauma.
Material and Methods:
The keyword “maxillofacial trauma” was obtained from Google Trends, YouTube was then searched, and 200 videos were selected to be analyzed for the study. Of the 200 videos, 108 were found eligible and then rated for quality and adequacy. After evaluating the demographic features of the videos, the viewing rates of the videos were determined. The quality of the videos was assessed by the Information Quality Index (VIQI) and the Global Quality Scale (GQS). The videos were categorized as low and high-content groups using a 16-point score system. Shapiro-Wilk test, Mann-Whitney U test, Pearson chi-square test and Fisher-Freeman-Halton were used for statistical analysis.
Results:
The vast majority of YouTube videos were uploaded by healthcare professionals (55.6%). The low content videos were classified as 88 videos (81.5%) and 20 videos (18.5%) as high content. The anatomic structures were the most covered topic (43.5%), followed by trauma area (40.7%), treatment procedure (32.4%), intraoral complications (31.5%), and definition of maxillofacial trauma (30.6%). A lower percentage of videos (13.9%) mentioned post-operative. Prognosis and survival (17.6%) were another low finding. The high-content video group had a significantly higher median value of GQS and VIQI score. A positive correlation was obtained from the total content score along with the total VIQI (r=0.792, p<0.001) and GQS (r=0.778, p<0.001) score and also it was determined that there was a statistically significant positive correlation between VIQI and GQS scores (r=0.930, p<0.001).
Conclusions:
The findings of this study highlight the need for improved content quality and accuracy of YouTube videos on maxillofacial trauma, particularly for layperson audiences. This could be achieved through collaboration between healthcare professionals, commercial entities, laypersons and YouTube to create, review, and promote reliable educational content. By doing so, YouTube can become a more valuable resource for patient education and awareness regarding maxillofacial trauma management and treatment.

Keywords

maxillofacial trauma, patient information, YouTube, GQS, VIQI

YouTube'daki Maksillofasiyal Travma Videolarının İçeriğinin, Kalitesinin ve Yeterliliğinin Değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Amaç:
Bu çalışmada maksillofasiyal travma ile ilgili YouTube videolarındaki bilgilerin içerik, kalite ve yeterliliğinin analiz edilmesi amaçlanmıştır.
Gereç ve Yöntemler:
"Maksillofasyal travma" anahtar kelimesi Google Trends'ten elde edilmiş, ardından YouTube'da arama yapılmış ve çalışma için analiz edilmek üzere 200 video seçilmiştir. Bu 200 videodan 108'i uygun bulundu ve daha sonra kalite ve yeterlilik açısından değerlendirildi. Videoların demografik özellikleri değerlendirildikten sonra videoların izlenme oranları belirlenmiştir. Videoların kalitesi Bilgi Kalitesi Endeksi (VIQI) ve Küresel Kalite Ölçeği (GQS) ile değerlendirilmiştir. Videolar 10 puanlık bir puan sistemi kullanılarak düşük ve yüksek çerikli gruplar olarak kategorize edilmiştir. İstatistiksel analiz için Shapiro-Wilk testi, Mann-Whitney U testi, Pearson ki-kare testi ve Fisher-Freeman-Halton kullanılmıştır.

Bulgular:
YouTube videolarının büyük çoğunluğu sağlık çalışanları tarafından yüklenmiştir (%55.6). Düşük çerikli videolar 88 video (%81.5) ve yüksek çerikli videolar 20 video (%18.5) olarak sınıflandırılmıştır. Anatomik yapılar en çok işlenen konu olurken (%43.5), bunu travma bölgesi (%40.7), tedavi prosedürü (%32.4), ağız ve çene komplikasyonları (%31.5) ve maksillofasyal travmanın tanımı (%30.6) takip etmiştir. Videoların daha düşük bir yüzdesi (%13.9) ameliyat sonrasından bahsetmiştir. Operasyon sonrası muayene (%18.5) bir diğer düşük bulgu olarak görülmüştür. Yüksek çerikli video grubunun GQS ve VIQI skoru medyan değeri anlamlı derecede yüksek bulunmuştur. Toplam içerik skoru ile toplam VIQI (r=0.792, p<0.001) ve GQS (r=0.778, p<0.001) skoru arasında pozitif bir korelasyon elde edilmiş ve ayrıca VIQI ve GQS skorları arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı pozitif bir korelasyon olduğu tespit edilmiştir (r=0.930, p<0.001).

Sonuçlar:
Bu çalışmanın bulguları, özellikle meslekten olmayan izleyiciler için maksillofasyal travma ile ilgili YouTube videolarının içerik kalitesinin ve doğruluğunun iyileştirilmesi ihtiyacını vurgulamaktadır.
Sağlık profesyonelleri, ticari kuruluşlar, sağlık çalışanı olmayan kişilerler ve YouTube arasındaki işbirliğiyle güvenilir eğitici içeriği oluşturmayı, gözden geçirmeyi ve teşvik etmeyi başarabiliriz. Bu sayede, YouTube maksillofasyal travma yönetimi ve tedavisi hakkında hasta eğitimi ve farkındalığı için daha değerli bir kaynak haline gelebilir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: maksillofasyal travma, hasta bilgilendirmesi, YouTube, GQS, VIQI

Keywords

maksillofasyal travma, hasta bilgilendirmesi, YouTube, GQS, VIQI

References

• 1. Goodisson D, MacFarlane M, Snape L, Darwish B. Head injury and associated maxillofacial injuries. N Z Med J. 2004;117.
• 2. Down KE, Boot DA, Gorman DF. Maxillofacial and associated injuries in severely traumatized patients: implications of a regional survey. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1995;24:409-12.
• 3. Imahara SD, Hopper RA, Wang J, Rivara FP, Klein MB. Patterns and outcomes of pediatric facial fractures in the United States: a survey of the National Trauma Data Bank. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;207:710-6.
• 4. Oikarinen KS. Clinical management of injuries to the maxilla, mandible, and alveolus. Dent Clin North Am. 1995;39:113-31.
• 5. Rankin M, Borah GL. Perceived functional impact of abnormal facial appearance. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;111:2140-6. 6. Klenk G, Kovacs A. Etiology and patterns of facial fractures in the United Arab Emirates. J Craniofac Surg. 2003;14:78-84.
• 7. Rallis G, Stathopoulos P, Igoumenakis D, Krasadakis C, Mourouzis C, Mezitis M. Treating maxillofacial trauma for over half a century: how can we interpret the changing patterns in etiology and management? Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2015;119:614-8.
• 8. World Internet Users Statistics and 2023 World Population Stats. Date of access: 1/5/2023, https://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
• 9. YouTube Statistics 2022 [Users by Country + Demographics]. Official GMI Blog. Date of access: 22/5/2023, https://www.globalmediainsight.com/blog/youtube-users-statistics.
• 10. Langford A, Loeb S. Perceived patient-provider communication quality and sociodemographic factors associated with watching health-related videos on YouTube: a cross-sectional analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21:e13512.
• 11. Chou WYS, Oh A, Klein WMP. Addressing health-related misinformation on social media. JAMA. 2018;320:2417-8.
• 12. Wong K, Doong J, Trang T, Joo S, Chien AL. YouTube videos on botulinum toxin a for wrinkles: a useful resource for patient education. Dermatol Surg. 2017;43:1466-73.
• 13. Lim K, Kilpatrick C, Storr J, Seale H. Exploring the use of entertainment-education YouTube videos focused on infection prevention and control. Am J Infect Control. 2018;46:1218-23.
• 14. Loeb S, Sengupta S, Butaney M, et al. Dissemination of misinformative and biased information about prostate cancer on YouTube. Eur Urol. 2019;75:564-7.
• 15. Staunton PF, Baker JF, Green J, Devitt A. Online Curves: A quality analysis of scoliosis videos on YouTube. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40:1857-61.
• 16. Gokcen HB, Gumussuyu G. A Quality analysis of disc herniation videos on YouTube. World Neurosurg. 2019;124:e799-e804.
• 17. Samuel N, Alotaibi NM, Lozano AM. YouTube as a source of information on neurosurgery. World Neurosurg. 2017;105:394-8.
• 18. Rodriguez HA, Young MT, Jackson HT, Oelschlager BK, Wright AS. Viewer discretion advised: is YouTube a friend or foe in surgical education? Surg Endosc. 2018;32:1724-8.
• 19. Sezici YL, Gediz M, Dindaroğlu F. Is YouTube an adequate patient resource about orthodontic retention? A cross-sectional analysis of content and quality. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2022;161:e72-e9.
• 20. Jansen BJ, Spink A. An analysis of web documents retrieved and viewed. In: International Conference on Internet Computing. 2003:65-9.
• 21. Hassona Y, Taimeh D, Marahleh A, Scully C. YouTube as a source of information on mouth (oral) cancer. Oral Dis. 2016;22:202-8.
• 22. Lena Y, Dindaroğlu F. Lingual orthodontic treatment: a YouTubeTM video analysis. Angle Orthod. 2018;88:208-14.
• 23. Basch CH, Ethan D, MacLean SA, Fera J, Garcia P, Basch CE. Readability of prostate cancer information online: a cross-sectional study. Am J Mens Health. 2018;12:1665-9.
• 24. Hong YA, Cho J. Has the digital health divide widened? Trends of health-related internet use among older adults from 2003 to 2011. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2017;72:856-63.
• 25. Gupte CM, Hassan ANA, McDermott ID, Thomas RD. The internet–friend or foe? A questionnaire study of orthopaedic out-patients. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2002;84:187.
• 26. Pehora C, Gajaria N, Stoute M, Fracassa S, Serebale-O’Sullivan R, Matava CT. Are parents getting it right? A survey of parents’ internet use for children’s health care information. Interact J Med Res. 2015;4:e3790.
• 27. Abdelmseih M. Evaluation and reliability of YouTube videos for age-related macular degeneration (amd)-a warning sign. J Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2016;7:595.
• 28. Ruppert L, Køster B, Siegert AM, et al. YouTube as a source of health information: analysis of sun protection and skin cancer prevention related issues. Dermatol Online J. 2017;23:1.
• 29. Gill P, Arlitt M, Li Z, Mahanti A. Youtube traffic characterization: a view from the edge. In: Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Internet Measurement. 2007:15-28.
• 30. Gabarron E, Fernandez-Luque L, Armayones M, Lau AY. Identifying measures used for assessing quality of YouTube videos with patient health information: a review of current literature. Interact J Med Res. 2013;2:e2465.
• 31. Kusanale A. Surgical Anatomy of the Face. In: Singh AK, Sharma NK, eds. Maxillofacial Trauma: A Clinical Guide. Springer Singapore; 2021:11-19.
• 32. 3. Gupta S, Kar R, Gupta H. Rehabilitation. In: Singh AK, Sharma NK, eds. Maxillofacial Trauma: A Clinical Guide. Springer Singapore; 2021:445-67.
• 33. Gassner R, Tuli T, Hächl O, Rudisch A, Ulmer H. Cranio-maxillofacial trauma: a 10 year review of 9543 cases with 21 067 injuries. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2003;31:51-61.
• 34. Yavan MA, Gökçe G. YouTube as a source of information on adult orthodontics: a video analysis study. J World Fed Orthod. 2022;11:41-6.
• 35. Ozdede M, Peker I. Analysis of dentistry YouTube videos related to COVID-19. Braz Dent J. 2020;31:392-8.
• 36. An update to dislikes on YouTube. blog.youtube. Date of access: 23/05/2023, https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/update-to-youtube/
• 37. Jung SG, Salminen J, J. Jansen B. The Effect of Hiding Dislikes on the Use of YouTube’s Like and Dislike Features. In: 14th ACM Web Science Conference 2022. 2022:202-7.
• 38. Pokharel PK, Baliga M, Amirthraj A, Mehar H. Assessing psychological consequences following maxillofacial trauma using DASS scale–our experience. Asian J Med Sci. 2016;7:85-9.
• 39. Parashar A, Sharma RK. Unfavourable outcomes in maxillofacial injuries: How to avoid and manage. Indian J Plast Surg. 2013;46:221.
• 40. Panigrahi B, Subudhi SK, Biswas SL. Acute Management of maxillofacial trauma: A review of literature. Indian J. Forensic Med. Toxicol. 2020;14:8791-7.
• 41. Tuckett JW, Lynham A, Lee GA, Perry M. Maxillofacial trauma in the emergency department: a review. Surgeon. 2014;12:106-14.
• 42. Bernstein MP. The imaging of maxillofacial trauma 2017. Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 2018;28:509-24.