Healthy Eating in the Digital World: Reliability and Quality Analysis of Vegan, Vegetarian and Plant-Based Nutrition Videos on YouTube

Öz

Objective: This study aimed to analyze the quality and reliability of vegan, vegetarian and plant-based nutrition videos on YouTube. Material and Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in January 2024. The first 100 Turkish videos collected from the searches with the keywords “Vegan Nutrition”, “Vegetarian Nutrition”, and “Plant-Based Nutrition” were evaluated. The quality and reliability of the videos were assessed using DISCERN, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), and Global Quality Scale (GQS) criteria. Data were analyzed with SPSS 24.0. Results: The GQS, JAMA, and DISCERN scores of the “Plant-Based Nutrition” videos were significantly higher than the other videos (p=0.002; p<0.001; p=0.002, respectively). Videos produced by physicians had the highest scores, while YouTuber content had the lowest scores. The number of likes on “Vegan Nutrition” videos showed a weak positive correlation with DISCERN Reliability (r=0.260; p=0.024) and JAMA (r=0.235; p=0.042) scores. For “Vegetarian Diet” videos, video duration was weakly positively correlated with DISCERN overall quality (r=0.289; p=0.011), JAMA (r=0.239; p=0.037), and moderately positively correlated with GQS score (r=0.360; p=0.001). The number of likes on “Plant-Based Nutrition” videos was moderately positively correlated with DISCERN Quality of Information (r=0.346; p=0.045), DISCERN Overall Quality (r=0.401; p=0.019), and DISCERN total score (r=0.412; p=0.015). Conclusion: “Plant-based Diet” videos scored higher than other videos regarding information quality and reliability. Increasing the contribution of health professionals in digital content production is important to prevent information pollution and support public health.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Plant-based diet
• vegetarian diet
• YouTube
• quality
• reliability

Dijital Dünyada Sağlıklı Beslenme: YouTube’da Vegan, Vejetaryen ve Bitkisel Beslenme Videolarının Güvenilirlik ve Kalite Analizi

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı YouTube’da yayımlanan vegan, vejetaryen ve bitkisel beslenme temalı videoların kalite ve güvenilirlik açısından incelenmesidir. Gereç ve Yöntem: 2024 Ocak ayında gerçekleştirilen bu kesitsel çalışmada, “Vegan Beslenme”, “Vejetaryen Beslenme” ve “Bitkisel Beslenme” anahtar kelimeleriyle yapılan aramalarda elde edilen ilk 100 Türkçe video incelenmiştir. Videoların kalite ve güvenilirliği DISCERN, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) ve Global Kalite Skalası (GQS) ölçütleri ile değerlendirilmiştir. Veriler SPSS 24.0 programı ile analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular: “Bitkisel Beslenme” videolarının GQS, JAMA ve DISCERN puanları diğer videolardan anlamlı derecede yüksek bulunmuştur (sırasıyla p=0,002; p<0,001; p=0,002). Hekimlerin hazırladığı videolar en yüksek puanlara sahipken, YouTuberların içerikleri en düşük puanları almıştır. “Vegan Beslenme” videolarında beğeni sayısı, DISCERN Güvenilirlik (r=0,260; p=0,024) ve JAMA (r=0,235; p=0,042) puanları ile pozitif yönlü zayıf bir korelasyon göstermiştir. “Vejetaryen Beslenme” videolarında video süresi, DISCERN Genel Kalite (r=0,289; p=0,011), JAMA (r=0,239; p=0,037) ile pozitif yönlü zayıf; GQS puanı (r=0,360; p=0,001) ile pozitif yönlü orta düzey korelasyon göstermiştir. “Bitkisel Beslenme” videolarında beğeni sayısı ile DISCERN Bilgi Kalitesi alt boyutu (r=0,346; p=0,045) ve DISCERN Genel Kalite (r=0,401; p=0,019) ve DISCERN toplam puan (r=0,412; p=0,015) arasında pozitif yönlü orta düzey korelasyon vardır. Sonuç: “Bitkisel Beslenme” videoları diğer videolara kıyasla bilgi kalitesi ve güvenilirlik açısından daha yüksek puanlar almıştır. Sağlık profesyonellerinin dijital içerik üretimindeki katkılarının artırılması, bilgi kirliliğini önlemek ve halk sağlığını desteklemek açısından önemlidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bitkisel beslenme
• vejetaryen diyet
• YouTube
• kalite
• güvenilirlik

Kaynakça

1. Clem J, Barthel B. A look at plant-based diets. Mo Med. 2021 MayJun;118(3):233-238
2. Kent G, Kehoe L, Flynn A, Walton J. Plant-based diets: a review of thedefinitions and nutritional role in the adult diet. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2022 Mar20;81(1):62–74. DOI: 10.1017/S0029665121003839.
3. Hargreaves SM, Rosenfeld DL, Moreira AVB, Zandonadi RP. Plant-based and vegetarian diets: an overview and definition of these dietarypatterns. Eur J Nutr. 2023 Apr 22;62(3):1109–21. DOI: 10.1007/s00394-023-03086-z.
4. Satija A, Bhupathiraju SN, Rimm EB, Spiegelman D, Chiuve SE, Borgi L,et al. Plant-based dietary patterns and incidence of type 2 diabetes in usmen and women: results from three prospective cohort studies. PLoSMed. 2016 Jun 14;13(6):e1002039. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002039
5. Kim H, Caulfield LE, Rebholz CM. Healthy plant-based diets areassociated with lower risk of all-cause mortality in US adults. J Nutr. 2018Apr;148(4):624–31. DOI: 10.1093/jn/nxy019. DOI: 10.1093/jn/nxy019.
6. Ma SR, Zhang YY, Fan ZY, He FF, Wei WQ. Association of plant-baseddiets with risk of upper gastrointestinal tract cancers: A systematic reviewand meta-analysis. J Nutr Oncol. 2023 Dec;8(4):159–68.DOI:10.1097/JN9.0000000000000025.
7. Zhao Y, Zhan J, Wang Y, Wang D. The relationship between plant-baseddiet and risk of digestive system cancers: a meta-analysis based on3,059,009 subjects. Front Public Health. 2022 Jun 3;10. DOI:10.3389/fpubh.2022.892153
8. Karadağ A, Akçinar B. Üniversite öğrencilerinde sosyal medyabağımlılığı ve psikolojik semptomlar arasındaki ilişki. Bağımlılık Dergisi.2019;20(3).

9. Mamlin BW, Tierney WM. The promise of information andcommunication technology in healthcare: extracting value from thechaos. Am J Med Sci. 2016 Jan;351(1):59–68. DOI:10.1016/j.amjms.2015.10.015.
10. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (TUIK). Hanehalkı bilişim teknolojilerikullanım araştırması, 2023. [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2024 Dec 10]. Availablefrom: https://data.tuik.gov.tr
11. Osman W, Mohamed F, Elhassan M, Shoufan A. Is YouTube a reliablesource of health-related information? A systematic review. BMC MedEduc. 2022 Dec 19;22(1):382. DOI: 10.1186/s12909-022-03446-z.
12. Madathil KC, Rivera-Rodriguez AJ, Greenstein JS, Gramopadhye AK.Healthcare information on YouTube: A systematic review. HealthInformatics J. 2015 Sep 25;21(3):173–94. DOI:10.1177/1460458213512220.
13. Horn L, Budulan MA, Loghin M. Motives for Veganism and theInfluence of Social Media. Cadernos de Investigação do Mestrado emNegócio Eletrónico CIMNE. 2022;2.
14. Pilař L, Kvasničková Stanislavská L, Kvasnička R. Healthy food on thetwitter social network: vegan, homemade, and organic food. Int J EnvironRes Public Health. 2021 Apr 6;18(7):3815. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18073815
15. Kar Kei C. Influencer marketing to youth: the impact of instagraminfluencer on healthy food choices among youth. J. Commun. Lang. Cult.2024 Jan 26;4(1):108–25. DOI:10.33093/jclc.2024.4.1.6.
16. Musaiger AO, Al-Mannai M, Tayyem R, Al-Lalla O, Ali EYA, Kalam F, etal. Risk of disordered eating attitudes among adolescents in seven Arabcountries by gender and obesity: A cross-cultural study. Appetite. 2013Jan;60:162–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2012.10.012
17. Benajiba N, Alhomidi M, Alsunaid F, Alabdulkarim A, Dodge E,Chavarria EA, et al. Video clips of the Mediterranean Diet on YouTubeTM : A social Media Content Analysis. Am. J. Health Promot. 2023 Mar3;37(3):366–74. DOI: 10.1177/08901171221132113.
18. Rana A, Arora M. Ketogenic diet: Assessing YouTube videoinformation using quality, reliability, and text analytics methods. NutrHealth. 2023 Aug 9:2601060231193789. DOI:10.1177/02601060231193789.
19. Sütcüoğlu O, Özay Zİ, Özet A, Yazıcı O, Özdemir N. Evaluation ofscientific reliability and quality of YouTube videos on cancer andnutrition. Nutrition. 2023 Apr;108:111933. DOI:10.1016/j.nut.2022.111933.
20. Rieder B, Matamoros-Fernández A, Coromina Ò. From rankingalgorithms to ‘ranking cultures.’ Convergence: The International Journalof Research into New Media Technologies. 2018 Feb 10;24(1):50–68.DOI:10.1177/1354856517736982.
21. Wang T, Masedunskas A, Willett WC, Fontana L. Vegetarian and vegandiets: benefits and drawbacks. Eur Heart J. 2023 Sep 21;44(36):3423–39.DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehad436.
22. Ferhatoglu MF, Kartal A, Ekici U, Gurkan A. Evaluation of the reliability,utility, and quality of the information in sleeve gastrectomy videos sharedon open access video sharing platform youtube. Obes Surg. 2019 May1;29(5):1477–84. DOI: 10.1007/s11695-019-03738-2.
23. Morahan-Martin JM. How internet users find, evaluate, and use onlinehealth information: a cross-cultural review. Cyberpsychol Behav. 2004Oct;7(5):497–510. DOI: 10.1089/cpb.2004.7.497.
24. Erdem H, Sisik A. The reliability of bariatric surgery videos in youtubeplatform. Obes Surg. 2018 Mar 5;28(3):712–6. DOI: 10.1007/s11695-017-2911-3.
25. Silberg WM. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality ofmedical information on the internet. JAMA. 1997 Apr 16;277(15):1244.DOI:10.1001/jama.1997.03540390074039
26. Bernard A, Langille M, Hughes S, Rose C, Leddin D, Veldhuyzen vanZanten S. A systematic review of patient inflammatory bowel diseaseinformation resources on the world wide web. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007Sep;102(9):2070–7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01325.x.
27. Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: aninstrument for judging the quality of written consumer healthinformation on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health (1978).1999 Feb 1;53(2):105–11. DOI: 10.1136/jech.53.2.105.
28. Salman MY, Bayar G. Evaluation of quality and reliability of YouTubevideos on female urinary incontinence. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod.2021 Dec;50(10):102200. DOI: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2021.102200
29. Kuru T, Erken HY. Evaluation of the quality and reliability of youtubevideos on rotator cuff tears. Cureus. 2020 Feb 3; e6852.DOI:10.7759/cureus.6852
30. Kiss A, Soós S, Temesi Á, Unger-Plasek B, Lakner Z, Tompa O.Evaluation of the reliability and educational quality of YouTubeTM videoson sport nutrition topics. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2023 Dec 31;20(1). DOI:10.1080/15502783.2023.2278632
31. Azak M, Korkmaz N, Şahin K, Gözen D. Evaluation of YouTube videoson complementary feeding: Content quality and reliability analysis.Appetite. 2023 Sep;188:106766. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2023.106766
32. Ertem U, Özçakır S, Jale İrdesel F, Mahmut Günay S. YouTube as asource of information on piriformis syndrome exercises. Turk J Phys MedRehabil. 2023 Mar 1;1(1):15–22. DOI: 10.5606/tftrd.2022.10459.
33. Ng CH, Lim GRS, Fong W. Quality of English‐language videos onYouTube as a source of information on systemic lupus erythematosus. IntJ Rheum Dis. 2020 Dec 13;23(12):1636–44. DOI: 10.1111/1756-185X.13852
34. Amarasekara I, Grant WJ. Exploring the YouTube sciencecommunication gender gap: A sentiment analysis. Public Understandingof Science. 2019 Jan 5;28(1):68–84. DOI:10.1177/0963662518786654.
35. Thelwall M, Mas-Bleda A. YouTube science channel video presentersand comments: female friendly or vestiges of sexism? Aslib J InformManag. 2018 Jan 15;70(1):28–46. DOI:10.1108/AJIM-09-2017-0204.
36. Stefoska‐Needham A, Weber CM, Beck EJ, Craddock JC, Houston LA.Recruitment, retention, and experiences of Australian male dietitians: Across‐sectional online survey. Nutr Diet. 2024 Apr 19;81(2):160–9. DOI:10.1111/1747-0080.12858.
37. Konstantinidis S, Fernandez-Luque L, Bamidis P, Karlsen R. The role oftaxonomies in social media and the semantic web for health education.Methods Inf Med. 2013 Jan 20;52(02):168–79. DOI: 10.3414/ME12-02-0005.
38. Gheihman N. Veganism as a lifestyle movement. Sociol Compass.2021 May 7;15(5). DOI:10.1111/soc4.12877
39. Bali A, Naik R. The impact of a vegan diet on many aspects of health:the overlooked side of veganism. Cureus. 2023 Feb 18;15(2):e35148. DOI:10.7759/cureus.35148.
40. Corrin T, Papadopoulos A. Understanding the attitudes andperceptions of vegetarian and plant-based diets to shape future healthpromotion programs. Appetite. 2017 Feb;109:40–7. DOI:10.1016/j.appet.2016.11.018
41. Waszak PM, Kasprzycka-Waszak W, Kubanek A. The spread of medicalfake news in social media – The pilot quantitative study. Health PolicyTechnol. 2018 Jun;7(2):115–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.hlpt.2018.03.002
42. Diviani N, van den Putte B, Meppelink CS, van Weert JCM. Exploringthe role of health literacy in the evaluation of online health information:Insights from a mixed-methods study. Patient Educ Couns. 2016Jun;99(6):1017–25. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2016.01.007
43. El Jassar OG, El Jassar IN, Kritsotakis EI. Assessment of quality ofinformation available over the internet about vegan diet. Nutr Food Sci.2019 Nov 11;49(6):1142–52. DOI: 10.1108/NFS-02-2019-0044
44. Kurt Demirsoy K, Kaplan MH, Büyük SK. Evaluation of informationreliability and quality of youtubetm videos about white spot lesions. ADOKlinik Bilimler Dergisi. 2023 Jan 18;12(1):87–94. DOI:10.54617/adoklinikbilimler.1130086
45. Bettinelli ME, Bezze E, Morasca L, Plevani L, Sorrentino G, Morniroli D,et al. Knowledge of health professionals regarding vegetarian diets frompregnancy to adolescence: an observational study. Nutrients. 2019 May23;11(5):1149. DOI: 10.3390/nu11051149
46. Barlas T, Ecem Avci D, Cinici B, Ozkilicaslan H, Muhittin Yalcin M,Eroglu Altinova A. The quality and reliability analysis of YouTube videosabout insulin resistance. Int J Med Inform. 2023 Feb;170:104960. DOI:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2022.104960
47. Gkikas K, Wan M, Svolos V, Nichols B, Hansen R, Russell RK, et al.YouTube as a source of information for food, diet-related items, andadvisory comments for the management of inflammatory bowel disease.Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2024 Mar 1;30(3):347–56. DOI: 10.1093/ibd/izad076
48. Huang MM, Winoker JS, Allaf ME, Matlaga BR, Koo K. Evidence‐basedquality and accuracy of YouTube videos about nephrolithiasis. BJU Int.2021 Feb 19;127(2):247–53. DOI: 10.1111/bju.15213
49. Yang S, Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Xenos MA. The science of YouTube:What factors influence user engagement with online science videos?PLoS One. 2022 May 25;17(5):e0267697. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0267697
50. Demirci Ş, Uğurluoğlu Ö, Konca M, Çakmak C. Socio‐demographiccharacteristics affect health information seeking on the Internet in Turkey.Health Info Libr J. 2021 Dec;38(4):304–12. DOI: 10.1111/hir.12358