HEMOFİLİ HASTALARINA YÖNELİK YOUTUBE’DA PAYLAŞILAN EGZERSİZ VE FİZYOTERAPİ VİDEOLARININ KALİTE VE GÜVENİLİRLİĞİNİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ: KESİTSEL BİR ÇALIŞMA

Öz

Amaç: Hemofilide egzersiz ve fizyoterapi ile ilgili YouTube’da paylaşılan videoların kalitesini ve güvenilirliğini değerlendirmek amacıyla yapılmıştır. Yöntem: “Hemofilide egzersiz” ve “hemofilide fizyoterapi” terimleri YouTube’a girildi, İlk 300 video iki fizyoterapist tarafından bağımsız olarak analiz edildi ve güvenilir veya güvenilmez olarak sınıflandırıldı. Video demografisi, konuşmacılara ve videoyu yükleyenlere göre analiz edildi. Video Güç İndeksi (VGİ) her video için hesaplandı. Videoların güvenilirliğini ve genel kalitesini değerlendirmek için Modifiye DISCERN ve Global Kalite Skoru (GKS) kullanıldı. Sonuçlar: Seksen beş video dahil edildi ve 51,7 % ‘si güvenilir değildi. Videoların medyan GKS ve DISCERN puanları güvenilir grupta ve konuşmacıların hekim ve fizyoterapist olduğu grupta anlamlı olarak daha yüksekti (p<0,001). Video kaynağına göre, hemofili hastaları ve kişisel antrenörler tarafından paylaşılan videoların GKS ve DISCERN puanları, diğer grupların tüm ikili karşılaştırmalarında anlamlı derecede düşük bulundu (p<0,001). Güvenilir grupta VGİ daha yüksek olmasına rağmen, tüm grup karşılaştırmalarında anlamlı bir fark bulunmadı (p=0,185). Tartışma: Hemofilide YouTube’da paylaşılan egzersiz ve fizyoterapi videolarının çoğunluğunun güvenilir olmadığı ve oldukça düşük kalitede olduğu tespit edildi. Hemofili Dernekleri/Üniversiteler/hekim veya fizyoterapistler tarafından paylaşılan videoların popülaritesi yüksek olmasa da güvenilirliği ve kalitesi nispeten daha yüksektir. Hemofilik bireylerin eklem sağlığını koruyan fizyoterapiste ulaşmada yaşadıkları zorluklar düşünüldüğünde kas iskelet sistemi uzmanı fizyoterapistlerin özgün, detaylı ve ilgi çekici videolar paylaşmaları önerilebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• YouTube
• Hemofili
• Egzersiz
• Artropati
• Fizyoterapi

EVALUATION OF THE QUALITY AND RELIABILITY OF EXERCISE AND PHYSIOTHERAPY VIDEOS SHARED ON YOUTUBE FOR PATIENTS WITH HEMOPHILIA: A CROSS SECTIONAL STUDY

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the quality and reliability of shared on YouTube videos pertaining to exercises and physiotherapy in haemophilia. Methods: The terms “exercise in haemophilia” and ‘’physiotherapy in hemophilia’’ were entered on YouTube, First 300 videos were independently analyzed by two physiotherapists and were classified as reliable or non-reliable. Video demographics were analyzed according to speakers and uploaders of the video. Video Power Index (VPI) was calculated for each video. Modified DISCERN and Global Quality Scores (GQS) were used to assess the reliability and overall quality of the videos. Results: Eighty-five videos were included and 51.7 % were non-reliable. The median GQS and DISCERN scores of the videos were significantly higher in the reliable group and where the speakers were physician and physiotherapist (p<0.001). According to the video source, the GQS and DISCERN scores of the videos shared by haemophilia patients and personal trainers were found to be significantly lower in all pairwise comparisons of other groups (p<0.001). Although the VPI was higher in the reliable group, no significant difference was found in all group comparisons (p=0.185). Conclusions: It was determined that most of the exercise and physiotherapy videos shared on YouTube in hemophilia were non-reliable and quite low quality. Although the popularity of the videos shared by Haemophilia Associations/Universities/physician or physiotherapists is not high, their reliability and quality are relatively higher. Considering the difficulties of hemophilic individuals in reaching physiotherapist who maintains their joint health, it may be recommended that musculoskeletal specialist physiotherapists share original, detailed and interesting videos.

Keywords

• YouTube
• Hemophilia
• Exercise
• Arthropathy
• Physiotherapy

References

1. 1- Srivastava A, Santagostino E, Dougall A, et al. WFH Guidelines for the management of hemophilia panelists and co-authors. WFH guidelines for the management of hemophilia, 3rd edition. Haemophilia. 2020;26(6):1-158. doi: 10.1111/hae.14046
2. 2- Leslie R, Catherine M. Modern management of haemophilic arthropathy. British journal of haematology. 2007:136(6), 777-787. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2141.2007.06490.
3. 3- Wagner B, Seuser A, Krüger S, et al. Establishing an online physical exercise program for people with hemophilia. Wiener klinische Wochenschrift. 2019;131(21);558-566. doi: 10.1007/s00508-019-01548-1.
4. 4- Madathil KC, Rivera-Rodriguez AJ, Greenstein JS, et al. Healthcare information on YouTube: a systematic review. Health informatics journal. 2015;21(3);173-194. doi: 10.1177/1460458213512220.
5. 5- Kuru T, Erken HY. (2020). Evaluation of the quality and reliability of YouTube videos on rotator cuff tears. Cureus.2020;12(2);e6852. doi: 10.7759/cureus.6852.
6. 6- Diaz JA, Griffith RA, Ng JJ , et al. (2002). Patients' use of the Internet for medical information. Journal of general internal medicine. 2002;17(3); 180-185. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2002.10603.x.
7. 7- Tolu S, Yurdakul OV, Basaran B, & et al. English-language videos on YouTube as a source of information on self-administer subcutaneous anti-tumour necrosis factor agent injections. Rheumatology international. 2018;38(7);1285-1292. doi: 10.1007/s00296-018-4047-8.
8. 8- Google. Press, 2022. Available: https://www.youtube.com/about/press. Accessed 15 Jan 2022.

9. 9- Sandvine, I. (2019). Global internet phenomena report. North America and Latin America. https://www.sandvine.com/global-internet-phenomena-report-2019. Accessed 15 Jan 2022.
10. 10- Pandey A, Patni N, Singh M, et al. YouTube as a source of information on the H1N1 influenza pandemic. American journal of preventive medicine. 2010;38(3), e1-e3. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.11.007.
11. 11- Pathak R, Poudel DR, Karmacharya P, et al. YouTube as a source of information on Ebola virus disease. North American journal of medical sciences. 2015;7(7), 306. doi: 10.4103/1947-2714.161244.
12. 12- Bora K, Das D, Barman B, et al. Are internet videos useful sources of information during global public health emergencies? A case study of YouTube videos during the 2015–16 Zika virus pandemic. Pathogens and global health. 2018;112(6), 320-328. doi: 10.1080/20477724.2018.1507784.
13. 13- Esen E, Aslan M, Sonbahar BÇ, et al. YouTube English videos as a source of information on breast self-examination. Breast cancer research and treatment. 2019; 173(3), 629-635. doi: 10.1007/s10549-018-5044-z.
14. 14- Zengin O, Onder ME: Educational quality of YouTube videos on musculoskeletal ultrasound. Clin Rheumatol. 2021, 40: 4243-51. doi: 10.1007/s10067-021-05793-6.
15. 15- Calisir A, Ece I. Assessment of the Quality and Reliability of Intragastric Balloon Videos on YouTube. Obesity Surgery. 2022;1-7. doi: 10.1007/s11695-022-05911-6.
16. 16- Kocyigit BF, Nacitarhan V, Koca TT, et al. YouTube as a source of patient information for ankylosing spondylitis exercises. Clin Rheumatol. 2019;38(6);1747-1751. doi: 10.1007/s10067-018-04413-0.
17. 17- Rodriguez-Rodriguez AM, Blanco-Diaz M, Lopez-Diaz P, et al. Quality Analysis of YouTube Videos Presenting Pelvic Floor Exercises after Prostatectomy Surgery. Journal of Personalized Medicine. 2021;11(9), 920. doi: 10.3390/jpm11090920.
18. 18- Rodriguez AMR, Blanco-Diaz M, Diaz PL, et al. Quality Analysis of YouTube Videos Presenting Shoulder Exercises after Breast Cancer Surgery. Breast Care. 2021;1-11. doi.org/10.1159/000518265.
19. 19- Gul M, Diri MA. YouTube as a source of information about premature ejaculation treatment. The journal of sexual medicine. 2019;16(11);1734-1740. doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.08.008.
20. 20- Garg N, Venkatraman A, Pandey A, et al. YouTube as a source of information on dialysis: a content analysis. Nephrology. 2015;20(5):315–20. doi: 10.1111/nep.12397.
21. 21- Erdem MN, Karaca S. Evaluating the accuracy and quality of the information in kyphosis videos shared on YouTube. Spine. 2018;43(22); 1334-1339. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002691.
22. 22- Drozd B, Couvillon E, Suarez A. Medical YouTube videos and methods of evaluation: literature review. JMIR medical education. 2018;4(1); e8527. doi: 10.2196/mededu.8527.
23. 23- Singh, A. G., Singh, S., & Singh, P. P. (2012). YouTube for information on rheumatoid arthritis—a wakeup call?. The Journal of rheumatology. 2012; 39(5), 899-903. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.111114.
24. 24- Jildeh TR, Abbas MJ, Abbas L, et al. YouTube Is a Poor-Quality Source for Patient Information on Rehabilitation and Return to Sports After Hip Arthroscopy. Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation. 2021;3(4);1055-1063. doi: 10.1016/j.asmr.2021.03.011.
25. 25- Koller U, Waldstein W, Schatz KD, et al. YouTube provides irrelevant information for the diagnosis and treatment of hip arthritis. International orthopaedics.2016; 40(10), 1995-2002. doi: 10.1007/s00264-016-3174-7
26. 26- Li HOY, Bailey A, Huynh D, et al. YouTube as a source of information on COVID-19: a pandemic of misinformation?. BMJ global health. 2020;5(5); e002604. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-002604
27. 27- Onder ME, Onder CE, Zengin O. Quality of English-language videos available on YouTube as a source of information on osteoporosis. Archives of Osteoporosis. 2022;17(1),1-9. doi: 10.1007/s11657-022-01064-2.
28. 28- Culha Y, Ak ES, Merder E, et al. Analysis of the YouTube videos on pelvic floor muscle exercise training in terms of their reliability and quality. International Urology and Nephrology. 2021; 53(1), 1-6. doi: 10.1007/s11255-020-02620-w.
29. 29- Basim P, Argun D. A qualitative analysis of ostomy-related patient education videos on YouTube. Advances in Skin & Wound Care. 2021;34(6),314-320. doi: 10.1097/01.ASW.0000744340.11915.93.