TÜRKÇE YOUTUBE VİDEOLARINDA İMMÜNOTERAPİ: KALİTE, GÜVENİRLİK VE BİLGİ İÇERİĞİNİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmada, immünoterapi hakkında bilgi veren Türkçe YouTube videolarının kalite ve güvenilirlik açısından değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Yöntem: 1 Kasım 2025 tarihinde kesitsel olarak gerçekleştirilen çalışmada, Google Trends ile belirlenen beş anahtar kelime ("immünoterapi", "immünoterapi nedir", "immünoterapi tedavisi", "immünoterapi yan etkileri", "immünoterapi ilaçları") kullanılarak YouTube'da arama yapıldı. Dahil edilme kriterlerini karşılayan 95 video, iki onkoloji uzmanı tarafından bağımsız olarak değerlendirildi. Videoların kalitesi ve güvenilirliği; modifiye DISCERN (mDISCERN), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Global Kalite Skoru (GQS) ve Video Bilgi Kalite Endeksi (VIQI) kullanılarak ölçüldü. Video etkileşimi Video Güç İndeksi (VPİ) ile hesaplandı. Bulgular: Videoların ortalama süresi 423±688 saniye, ortalama toplam izlenme sayısı ise 1245±737 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Videoların %87'si faydalı, %13'ü yanlış veya eksik bilgi içermekteydi. Medikal onkoloji uzmanları tarafından anlatılan videolar yüksek kalite skorlarına sahipti (mDISCERN: 4,22±0,73, JAMA: 3,15±0,77, GQS: 4,14±0,65, VIQI: 16,66±2,52). Onkoloji dışı uzmanların videoları düşük kalite skorlarına rağmen yüksek VPİ puanlarına sahipti (VPİ: 11,59±15,66). mDISCERN, JAMA, GQS ve VIQI puanları arasında güçlü pozitif korelasyon saptandı (her biri için p<0,001). İzlenme oranı ile GQS ve VIQI arasında zayıf korelasyon saptandı (sırasıyla p=0,039, p=0,038). Sonuç: Türkçe YouTube videolarında immünoterapi içeriklerinin kalitesi büyük ölçüde içerik sağlayıcısının uzmanlığına bağlıdır. Medikal onkoloji uzmanları tarafından hazırlanan videolar yüksek kaliteli bilgi sunmaktadır. Ancak yüksek kaliteli içeriklerin görünürlüğünün artırılması ve hastaların güvenilir kaynakları tanımaları konusunda sağlık profesyonellerinin eğitilmeleri gerekmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İmmünoterapi
• hasta eğitimi
• sosyal medya
• video kalitesi
• YouTube

IMMUNOTHERAPY IN TURKISH YOUTUBE VIDEOS: EVALUATION OF QUALITY, RELIABILITY, AND INFORMATION CONTENT

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate Turkish YouTube videos providing information about immunotherapy in terms of quality and reliability. Methods: In this cross-sectional study conducted on November 1, 2025, a search was performed on YouTube using five keywords identified by Google Trends (“immunotherapy,” “what is immunotherapy,” “immunotherapy treatment,” “immunotherapy side effects,” “immunotherapy drugs”). Ninety-five videos that met the inclusion criteria were independently evaluated by two oncology specialists. The quality and reliability of the videos were measured using modified DISCERN (mDISCERN), the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the Global Quality Score (GQS), and the Video Information Quality Index (VIQI). Video engagement was calculated using the Video Power Index (VPI). Results: The average duration of the videos was 423±688 seconds, and the average total number of views was 1245±737. Eighty-seven percent of the videos were useful, while 13% contained incorrect or incomplete information. Videos narrated by medical oncology specialists had high quality scores (mDISCERN: 4.22±0.73, JAMA: 3.15±0.77, GQS: 4.14±0.65, VIQI: 16.66±2.52). Videos by non-oncology specialists had high VPİ scores despite low quality scores (VPİ: 11.59±15.66). A strong positive correlation was found between mDISCERN, JAMA, GQS, and VIQI scores (p<0.001 for each). A weak correlation was found between the view rate and GQS and VIQI (p=0.039 and p=0.038, respectively). Conclusion: The quality of immunotherapy content in Turkish YouTube videos largely depends on the expertise of the content provider. Videos prepared by medical oncology specialists provide high-quality information. However, healthcare professionals need to be trained to increase the visibility of high-quality content and help patients identify reliable sources.

Keywords

• Immunotherapy
• patient education
• social media
• video quality
• YouTube

Kaynakça

1. Zhang H, Dai Z, Wu W, et al. Regulatory mechanisms of PD-L1 and CTLA-4 in cancer immune regulation. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2021;40(1):184. doi:10.1186/s13046-021-01987-7
2. Chryplewicz A, Scotton M, Tichet M, et al. Cancer cell intrinsic factors underlying tumor immune evasion. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2022. [Review on PD-1/PD-L1 and CTLA-4 immune checkpoint pathways in cancer immunotherapy]
3. Alsaab HO, Sau S, Alzhrani R, et al. PD-1 and PD-L1 checkpoint signaling inhibition for cancer immunotherapy: mechanism, combinations, and clinical outcome. Front Pharmacol. 2017;8:561. doi:10.3389/fphar.2017.00561
4. Qin S, Xu L, Yi M, Yu S, Wu K, Luo S. Novel immune checkpoint targets: moving beyond PD-1 and CTLA-4. Mol Cancer. 2019;18(1):155. doi:10.1186/s12943-019-1091-2
5. Smailhodzic E, Hooijsma W, Boonstra A, Langley DJ. Social media use in healthcare: A systematic review of effects on patients and on their relationship with healthcare professionals. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16(1):442. doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1691-0
6. Lee J, Turner K, Xie Z, Kadhim B, Hong YR. Association Between Health Information-Seeking Behavior on YouTube and Physical Activity Among US Adults: Results From Health Information Trends Survey 2020. AJPM Focus. 2022;1(2):100035. doi:10.1016/j.focus.2022.100035
7. Ventola CL. Social media and health care professionals: benefits, risks, and best practices. P T. 2014;39(7):491-520.
8. Jeyaraman M, Ramasubramanian S, Kumar S, et al. Multifaceted role of social media in healthcare: Opportunities, challenges, and the need for quality control. Cureus. 2023;15(6):e39111. doi:10.7759/cureus.39111

9. Huang C, Yang S, Chiang C. The associations between individual factors, eHealth literacy, and health behaviors among college students. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(22):8547. doi:10.3390/ijerph17228547
10. Semerci R, Şimşek E, Savaş E, Orhan E, Erbey F. YouTube as a source of information about chemotherapy for pediatric patients: A systematic examination. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2024;71(4):e30865. doi:10.1002/pbc.30865
11. 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(2):105-111. doi:10.1136/jech.53.2.105
12. Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: Caveant lector et viewor--Let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA. 1997;277(15):1244-1245. doi:10.1001/jama.1997.03540390074039
13. Bernard A, Langille M, Hughes S, Rose C, Leddin D, Veldhuyzen van Zanten S. A systematic review of patient inflammatory bowel disease information resources on the World Wide Web. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102(9):2070-2077. doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01381.x
14. Singh AG, Singh S, Singh PP. YouTube for information on rheumatoid arthritis--a wakeup call? J Rheumatol. 2012;39(5):899-903. doi:10.3899/jrheum.111114
15. Sütçüoğlu O, Öztürk A, Soyer NA, et al. Scientific quality and reliability analysis of Turkish YouTube videos on cancer and nutrition. Turk J Oncol. 2023;38(1):15-22. doi:10.5505/tjo.2022.3691
16. Sahin S, Seyyar G. Assessing the scientific quality and reliability of YouTube videos about chemotherapy. J Cancer Educ. 2023;38(5):1543-1550. doi:10.1007/s13187-023-02254-5
17. Wang Y, McKee M, Torbica A, Stuckler D. Systematic literature review on the spread of health-related misinformation on social media. Soc Sci Med. 2019;240:112552. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112552
18. Suarez-Lledo V, Alvarez-Galvez J. Prevalence of health misinformation on social media: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(1):e17187. doi:10.2196/17187
19. Sathianathan S, Lam SHK, Teng MYK, et al. Understanding public approaches to identifying health misinformation in Malaysia: a cross-sectional online survey. BMC Public Health. 2024;24(1):219. doi:10.1186/s12889-024-17713-7
20. Brahmer JR, Lacchetti C, Schneider BJ, et al. Management of immune-related adverse events in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(17):1714-1768. doi:10.1200/JCO.2017.77.6385
21. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Management of Immunotherapy-Related Toxicities. Version 1.2024. Fort Washington, PA: NCCN; 2024. https://www.nccn.org/guidelines/guidelines-detail?category=3&id=1461
22. Sahin S, Seyyar G. Assessing the scientific quality and reliability of YouTube videos about chemotherapy. J Cancer Educ. 2023;38(5):1543-1550. doi:10.1007/s13187-023-02254-5
23. Pitua P, Kongsomboon K, Srithawong A. Quality and reliability assessment of YouTube videos on aspergillosis: a cross-sectional study. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24(11):e39855. doi:10.2196/39855
24. Duran M, Kizilkan Y. Evaluation of the quality and reliability of YouTube videos as a source of information about testicular cancer. J Cancer Educ. 2022;37(2):408-413. doi:10.1007/s13187-020-01849-2
25. Mohamed A, Shoufan A. User experiences with health content on social media: a survey study. JMIR Form Res. 2023;7:e41313. doi:10.2196/41313
26. Joshi M, Hamid S, Bhatt H, Nguyen M, Bhatt DL. Myositis-related videos on YouTube: quality assessment and analysis of audience engagement. J Clin Rheumatol. 2022;28(2):e444-e448. doi:10.1097/RHU.0000000000001753
27. World Health Organization. Infodemic management: a key component of the COVID-19 global response. WHO; 2022. https://www.who.int/teams/risk-communication/infodemic-management
28. Mitsutake S, Oka K, Okan O, et al. eHealth literacy and web-based health information-seeking behaviors on COVID-19 in Japan: internet-based mixed methods study. J Med Internet Res. 2024;26:e57842. doi:10.2196/57842