Diş Çekimi Sonrası Postoperatif Bakım Için Hasta Eğitim Kaynağı Olarak YoutubeTM Videolarının Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmada, diş çekim işlemi sonrası postoperative bakım ile ilgili YouTubeTM videolarının kalitesinin, anlaşılabilirliğinin ve eyleme geçirilebilirliğinin değerlendirilmesi planlandı. Gereç ve Yöntem: Anahtar kelimeler olarak, 'diş çekimi sonrası postoperatif bakım' ile 'diş çekimi sonrası postoperative talimatlar' kullanıldı. Videolar seçildikten sonra videoların içeriklerini değerlendirmek için 16 puanlık kullanışlılık indeksi kullanıldı. Videoların kalitesini değerlendirmek için Modifiye DICERN ve Global Quality Scale (GQS), seçilen videoların anlaşılabilirliğini ve uygulanabilirliğini değerlendirmek için Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Audiovisual Materials (PEMAT-A/V) kullanıldı. Videoların tanımlayıcı verileri ile puanlama sistemlerinin bulguları arasındaki ilişki ile korelasyonu ve puanlama sistemleri arasındaki korelasyon değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Toplamda değerlendirme için 55 video seçildi. Videoların kullanışlılığını ve kalitesini etkileyen tek değişken videoların süresiydi (p<0,05). Değerlendirilen videoların %27,3'ü çok yararlı ve %54,5'i orta derecede yararlıydı. Kullanışlılık ile kalite ölçüm puanlama sistemleri arasında ilişki bulunurken, videoların kullanışlılık ile PEMAT-A/V puanları arasında ilişki bulunmadı (sırasıyla p<0,001; p=0,064). Sonuç: YouTubeTM'deki 'diş çekimi sonrası postoperatif bakım' konulu videoların kabul edilebilir düzeyde yararlı olabileceği, ancak bu seçilen videoların tatmin edici derecede anlaşılır ve harekete geçirici olmayabileceği sonucuna varıldı.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sağlık
• Postoperatif bakım
• Postoperatif prosedür
• Diş çekimi
• Sosyal medya

Evaluation of YoutubeTM Videos as a Patient Education Source for Postoperative Care After Tooth Extraction

Öz

Objectives: This study will assess the quality, understandability and actionability of YouTubeTM videos relating to postoperative care, using tooth extraction as a point of focus. Materials and Methods: As keywords, ‘postoperative care after tooth extraction’ and ‘postoperative instructions after tooth extraction’ were used. After selection of the videos, a 16-point usefulness index was used in order to evaluate the content of the videos. Modified DICERN and Global Quality Scale (GQS) were used for assessing quality of the videos and in order to evaluate understandability and actionability of the selected videos, Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Audiovisual Materials (PEMAT-A/V) were used. The relationship and correlation between the descriptive data of the videos and the findings of scoring systems and the correlation between scoring systems were evaluated. Results: Totally, 55 videos were selected for evaluation. Duration of the videos was the sole variable affecting the usefulness and quality of the videos (p<0.05). Among evaluated videos 27.3% were very useful and 54.5% were moderately useful. There was a relationship between usefulness and quality-measuring scoring systems, but no relationship between usefulness and PEMAT-A/V scores of the videos (p<0.001; p=0.064 respectively). Conclusion: It could be concluded that videos on YouTubeTM about the topic ‘postoperative care after tooth extraction’ might be useful in an acceptable level, but these selected videos might not be satisfyingly understandable and action-motivating.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Healthcare
• Postoperative care
• Postoperative procedures
• Tooth extraction
• Social media

Kaynakça

1. Akinbami BO, Godspower T. Dry socket: incidence, clinical features, and predisposing factors. Int J Dent 2014; 796102.
2. Adebayo ET, Dairo M. Patients` compliance with instructions after oral surgery in Nigeria. J Comm Med Prim Health Care 2005; 17(1): 38-44.
3. Gheisari R, Resalati F, Mahmoudi S, Golkari A, Mosaddad SA. Do Different Modes of Delivering Post-operative Instructions to Patients Help Reduce the Side Effects of Tooth Extraction? A Randomised Clinical Trial. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2018; 78(8): 1652.e1-e7.
4. Akpata O, Omoregie OF, Owotade F. Alveolar Osteitis: Patients’ compliance to post-extraction instructions following extraction of molar teeth. Niger Med J 2013; 54(5): 335-338.
5. Alexander RE. Patients’ understanding of postsurgical instruction forms. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1999; 89: 153-158.
6. Health topics: 80% of internet users look for health information online. Available online: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2011/05/12/the-social-life-of-health-information-2011/ (accessed on 05.02.2023).
7. Rice RE. Influences, usage, and outcomes of Internet health information searching: multivariate results from the Pew surveys. Int J Med Inform 2006; 75(1): 8-28.
8. Ybarra ML, Suman M. Help seeking behavior and the Internet: a national survey. Int J Med Inform 2006; 75(1): 29-41.

9. Cline RJ, Haynes KM. Consumer health information seeking on the Internet: the state of the art. Health Educ Res 2001; 16(6): 671-692.
10. Gas S, Zincir OO, Bozkurt AP. Are YouTube videos useful for patients interested in botulinum toxin for bruxism? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019; 77(9): 1776–83.
11. Lena Y, Dindaroglu F. Lingual orthodontic treatment: a YouTube video analysis. Angle Orthod 2018; 88(2): 208–14.
12. Singh SK, Liu S, Capasso R, Kern RC, Gouveia CJ. YouTube as a source of information for obstructive sleep apnea. Am J Otolaryngol 2018; 39(4): 378–82, 2018.
13. Cassidy JT, Fitzgerald E, Cassidy ES, Clear M, Byrne DP, Devit BM, Baker JF. YouTube provides poor information regarding anterior cruciate ligament injury and reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2018; 26(3): 840–5.
14. Hassona Y, Taimeh D, Marahleh A, Scully C. YouTube as a source of information on mouth (oral) cancer. Oral Dis 2016; 22(3): 202-8.
15. 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): 105-11.
16. Singh AG, Singh S, Singh PP. YouTube for information on rheumatoid arthritis--a wakeup call? J Rheumatol 2012; 39(5): 899-903.
17. 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): 2070-7.
18. Shoemaker SJ, Wolf MS, Brach C. Development of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT): a new measure of understandability and actionability for print and audiovisual patient information. Patient Educ Couns 2014; 96(3): 395-403.
19. The Most Popular Internet Sites of 2023. Available online: https://www.broadbandsearch.net/blog/most-visited-popular-websites (accessed on 06.02.2023).
20. Most Visited Websites in the World. Available online: https://www.similarweb.com/top-websites/ (accessed on 06.02.2023).
21. Menziletoglu D, Guler AY, Isik BK. Are YouTube videos related to dental implant useful for patient education? J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg 2020; 121(6): 661-664.
22. Abukaraky A, Hamdan AA, Ameera MN, Nasief M, Hassona, Y. Quality of YouTube TM videos on dental implants. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2018; 23(4): e463-e468.
23. Yagci F. Evaluation of YouTube as an information source for denture care. J Prosthet Dent 2021; S0022-3913(21): 00364-4.
24. Özişçi Ö. Assessing the quality of YouTube™ videos on fixed dental implant home-care and maintenance protocols. Int J Dent Hyg 2022. doi: 10.1111/idh.12660.
25. Er N, Gülfeşan Çanakçı F. Temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis videos on YouTube: Are they a good source of information? J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg 2022; 123(5): e310-e315.
26. Özdal Zincir Ö, Bozkurt AP, Gaş S. Potential Patient Education of YouTube Videos Related to Wisdom Tooth Surgical Removal. J Craniofac Surg 2019; 30(5): e481-e484.
27. Fuster E, Ruiz Roca J, Tvarijonaviciute A, López-Jornet P. YouTube information about diabetes and oral healthcare. Odontology 2020; 108(1): 84-90.
28. Göller Bulut D, Paksoy T, Ustaoğlu G. Is Online Video a Suitable Source to Obtain Sufficient and Useful Information About Peri-Implantitis? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2023; 81(1): 56-64.
29. Kidy S, McGoldrick DM, Stockton P. YouTube™ as a source of information on extraction of third molars. Oral Maxillofac Surg 2021; 25(4): 519-524.
30. Boyer C, Selby M, Scherrer JR, Appel RD. The Health On the Net Code of Conduct for medical and health Websites. Comput Biol Med 1998; 28(5): 603-10.
31. Charvet-Berard AI, Chopard P, Perneger TV. Measuring quality of patient information documents with an expanded EQIP scale. Patient Educ Couns 2008; 270(3): 407-11.
32. Engelmann J, Fischer C, Nkenke E. Quality assessment of patient information on orthognathic surgery on the internet. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2020; 48(7): 661-665.
33. Daraz L, Morrow AS, Ponce OJ, Beuschel B, Farah MH, Katabi A, Alsawas M, Majzoub AM, Benkhadra R, Seisa MO, Ding JF, Prokop L, Murad MH. Can Patients Trust Online Health Information? A Meta-narrative Systematic Review Addressing the Quality of Health Information on the Internet. J Gen Intern Med 2019; 34(9): 1884-1891.