Konjenital musküler tortikolisin konservatif tedavisine yönelik YouTube videolarının güvenilirliği, kapsamlılığı ve kalitesi

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışma, konjenital musküler tortikolisin (KMT) konservatif tedavisine yönelik YouTube videolarının kapsamlılık, güvenilirlik ve video kalitesini değerlendirmeyi ve sağlık profesyonelleri ile diğer içerik üreticileri tarafından yüklenen videoları kalite, güvenilirlik ve popülerlik açısından karşılaştırmayı amaçladı. Yöntem: Bu kesitsel çalışmada, belirli anahtar kelime aramaları yoluyla kaydedilen 50 YouTube videosu analiz edildi. Videolar; süresi, izlenme sayısı ve beğeni sayısı gibi karakteristik özelliklerinin yanı sıra, kapsamlılık (0–5 puan), Modifiye DISCERN aracıyla güvenilirlik (0–5 puan) ve Global Kalite Skalası (GKS) ile genel kalite (1–5 puan) açısından değerlendirildi. Ardından, videoları yükleyen kişi ya da kurumların türüne göre sınıflandırılmış ve karşılaştırmalı analiz gerçekleştirildi. Bulgular: Değerlendirilen 50 videonun %86’sı yararlı, %14’ü ise yanıltıcı olarak sınıflandırıldı. Yararlı videoların çoğu (%63) terapistler tarafından yüklenmişken, yanıltıcı videoların %57’si profesyonel olmayan kaynaklardan gelmişti. Yararlı videoların kapsamlılık, DISCERN ve GKS skorları, yanıltıcı videolara göre anlamlı derecede daha yüksekti (p<0.05). Yüksek kaliteli videolar, düşük ve orta kaliteli videolardan daha fazla günlük izlenme ve beğeni sayısına sahipti. Sağlık profesyonelleri tarafından yüklenen videoların daha güvenilir ve daha yüksek kalitede olduğu bulundu. Sonuç: YouTube’daki KMT ile ilgili videoların çoğu sağlık profesyonelleri tarafından yüklenmiş olsa da, yanıltıcı içeriklere hâlâ rastlanmaktadır. Video popülerliği, kaliteyi garanti etmemektedir. Bu nedenle, hasta eğitimi amacıyla kullanılan videolar doğruluk ve kapsamlılık açısından dikkatle değerlendirilmelidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Tortikolis
• Sağlık eğitimi
• Konservatif tedavi
• Dijital sağlık

Reliability, comprehensiveness, and quality of YouTube videos on conservative treatment of congenital muscular torticollis

Öz

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the comprehensiveness, reliability, and quality of YouTube videos related to the conservative treatment of congenital muscular torticollis (CMT) and to compare videos uploaded by healthcare professionals with those by other creators in terms of quality, reliability, and popularity. Methods: This cross-sectional study analyzed 50 YouTube videos recorded through specific keyword searches. The videos were evaluated for their characteristic features such as duration, views, and likes, as well as for comprehensiveness (scored 0–5), reliability using the Modified DISCERN tool (scored 0–5), and overall quality using the Global Quality Scale (GQS) (scored 1–5). They were then classified according to the type of individual or institution that uploaded them, and a comparative analysis was performed. Results: Of the 50 videos evaluated, 86% were classified as useful and 14% as misleading. While most of the useful videos (62.79%) were uploaded by therapists, 57.14% of the misleading videos originated from non-professional sources. The comprehensiveness, DISCERN, and GQS scores of useful videos were significantly higher than those of misleading ones (p < 0.05). High-quality videos had a greater number of daily views and likes compared to low- and medium-quality videos. Videos uploaded by healthcare professionals were found to be more reliable and of higher quality. Conclusion: Although most CMT-related videos on YouTube were uploaded by healthcare professionals, misleading content remains present. Video popularity does not guarantee quality. Therefore, videos used for patient education should be carefully evaluated in terms of accuracy and comprehensiveness.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Torticollis
• Health education
• Conservative treatment
• Digital health

Kaynakça

1. Aarnivala HE, Valkama AM, Pirttiniemi PM. Cranial shape, size and cervical motion in normal newborns. Early Hum Dev. 2014;90:425-430.
2. Chen MM, Chang HC, Hsieh CF, et al. Predictive model for congenital muscular torticollis: analysis of 1021 infants with sonography. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86:2199-2203.
3. Stellwagen L, Hubbard E, Chambers C, et al. Torticollis, facial asymmetry and plagiocephaly in normal newborns. Arch Dis Child. 2008;93:827-831.
4. Castilla A, Gonzalez M, Kysh L, et al. Informing the Physical Therapy Management of Congenital Muscular Torticollis Clinical Practice Guideline: A Systematic Review. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2023;35:190-200.
5. O’Connell M. Descriptions of physical therapy management of infants with congenital muscular torticollis in the United States of America. Newark, NJ: School of Health Professions, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey; 2016.
6. Kim OH, Lee SW, Ha EK, et al. Neurodevelopmental outcomes and comorbidities of children with congenital muscular torticollis: evaluation using the National Health Screening Program for Infants and Children database. Clin Exp Pediatr. 2022;65:312–319.
7. Sargent B, Coulter C, Cannoy J, et al. Physical therapy management of congenital muscular torticollis: A 2024 evidence-based clinical practice guideline from the American Physical Therapy Association Academy of Pediatric Physical Therapy. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2024;36:370-421.
8. Burmeister S, Kayne AN, Yazdanyar AR, et al. Plagiocephaly perception and prevention: a need to intervene early to educate parents. Open J Occup Ther. 2021;9:1-11.

9. Kocyigit BF, Nacitarhan V, Koca TT, et al. YouTube as a source of patient information for ankylosing spondylitis exercises. Clin Rheumatol. 2019;38:1747-1751.
10. Jeong KY, Lee HJ, Yim SY. The usefulness, reliability, and quality of YouTube video clips on congenital muscular torticollis: A STROBE compliant study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2022;101:e30502.
11. Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, et al. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health 1999;53(2):105-111.
12. Bernard A, Langille M, Hughes S, et al. A systematic review of patient inflammatory bowel disease information resources on the world wide web. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:2070-2077.
13. Osman W, Mohamed F, Elhassan M et al. Is YouTube a reliable source of health-related information? A systematic review. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22:382.
14. Utkan Karasu A, Karataş L. Assessing YouTube videos on lymphedema for patient education: A comprehensive evaluation. J Phys Med Rehabil Sci. 2024;27:135-143.
15. Ataç Ö, Özalp YC, Kurnaz R, et al. YouTube as an Information Source During the Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Pandemic: Evaluation of the Turkish and English Content. Cureus. 2020;12:e10795.
16. Sari F, Bazancir Apaydin Z, Sari S. Assessment of reliability and quality of YouTube® exercise videos in people with rheumatoid arthritis. Physiother Theory Pract. 2025;41:362-369.
17. Elangovan S, Kwan YH, Fong W. The usefulness and validity of English-language videos on YouTube as an educational resource for spondyloarthritis. Clin Rheumatol. 2021;40:1567-1573.
18. Pandey A, Patni N, Singh M, et al. YouTube as a source of information on the H1N1 influenza pandemic. Am J Prev Med. 2010;38(3):e1-e3.
19. Abed V, Ray M, Smathers J, et al. Assessment of video quality and reliability of YouTube videos regarding meniscus tear rehabilitation. Cureus. 2023;15(3):e36299.
20. Culha Y, Seyhan Ak E, Merder E, et al. Analysis of the YouTube videos on pelvic floor muscle exercise training in terms of their reliability and quality. Int Urol Nephrol. 2021;53:1-6.
21. Güloğlu S, Can Ö, Çinar E, et al. YouTube English videos as a source of information on arm and shoulder exercise after breast cancer surgery. Eur J Cancer Care. 2022;31:e13685.
22. Ağır H, Tuna M. Evaluation of quality and reliability of YouTube videos on idiopathic adolescent scoliosis. J Phys Med Rehabil Sci. 2023;26:276-281.
23. Haslam K, Doucette H, Hachey S, et al. YouTube videos as health decision aids for the public: An integrative review. Can J Dent Hyg. 2019;53:53-66.
24. Mangan MS, Cakir A, Yurttaser Ocak S, et al. Analysis of the quality, reliability, and popularity of information on strabismus on YouTube. Strabismus. 2020;28:175-180.
25. Chen L, Zhou Y, Chiu DM. Analysis and detection of fake views in online video services. ACM Trans Multimedia Comput Commun Appl. 2015;11(2s):1-20.
26. Gurler D, Buyukceran I. Assessment of the medical reliability of videos on social media: detailed analysis of the quality and usability of four social media platforms (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube). Healthcare (Basel). 2022;10:1836.
27. Springer B, Bechler U, Koller U, et al. Online videos provide poor information quality, reliability, and accuracy regarding rehabilitation and return to sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2020;36:3037-3047.
28. Bethell MA, Anastasio AT, Adu-Kwarteng K, et al. Analyzing the quality, reliability, and educational value of ACL rehabilitation exercises on TikTok: A cross-sectional study. Orthop J Sports Med. 2023;11:1-7.
29. Ertem U, Özçakır S, İrdesel FJ, et al. YouTube as a source of information on piriformis syndrome exercises. Turk J Phys Med Rehabil. 2022;69:15-22. Villafañe JH, Cantero-Tellez R, Valdes K, et al. Educational quality of YouTube videos in thumb exercises for carpometacarpal osteoarthritis: a search on current practice. Hand (N Y). 2018;13:715-719.