Cross-Sectional Analysis of Content Quality and Reliability of Turkish-Language Family Planning Videos on YouTube

Öz

Introduction: Family planning (FP) is a critical component of healthcare, enabling individuals to make informed decisions about contraception and reproductive health. Digital media platforms, particularly YouTube, have become prominent sources of FP information and education. However, the quality and reliability of videos on such platforms may hinder access to accurate information. This study aimed to evaluate the content quality and reliability of Turkish-language FP-related videos on YouTube.

Method: This cross-sectional study analyzed 162 Turkish-language YouTube videos retrieved using the keywords “family planning (Turkish: aile planlaması),” “condom (Turkish: kondom),” “preservative (Turkish: prezervatif),” “intrauterine device (Turkish: intrauterin araç),” and “birth control (Turkish: doğum kontrolü).” The DISCERN instrument and the Global Quality Scale (GQS) were used to assess video quality. Uploader identity and content classification were also examined.

Results: Videos uploaded by healthcare professionals had the highest DISCERN and GQS scores, while those uploaded by YouTubers had the lowest. Misleading videos—characterized by low DISCERN and GQS scores and scientifically inaccurate or incomplete content—tended to have higher view counts. 

Conclusion: While most Turkish-language FP videos on YouTube demonstrate moderate quality, the widespread popularity of misleading content raises concerns. To improve the accessibility of accurate information, health professionals and organizations should prioritize the production of evidence-based, engaging digital content.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• family planning
• YouTube
• DISCERN
• contraception
• misinformation
• health literacy

Destekleyen Kurum

No funding

Etik Beyan

This study does not require ethics committee approval as it is solely an analysis of online videos.

YouTube'daki Türkçe Aile Planlaması Videolarının İçerik Kalitesi ve Güvenilirliğine İlişkin Kesitsel Analiz

Öz

Giriş: Aile planlaması (AP), bireylerin doğum kontrolü ve üreme sağlığı hakkında bilinçli kararlar almalarını sağlayan, sağlık hizmetlerinin kritik bir bileşenidir. Dijital medya platformları, özellikle YouTube, AP bilgisi ve eğitiminin önde gelen kaynakları haline gelmiştir. Bununla birlikte, bu platformlardaki videoların kalitesi ve güvenilirliği, doğru bilgilere erişimi engelleyebilir. Bu çalışma, YouTube'daki Türkçe dilindeki AP ile ilgili videoların içerik kalitesini ve güvenilirliğini değerlendirmeyi amaçlamıştır.

Yöntem: Bu kesitsel çalışmada, "aile planlaması", "kondom", "prezervatif", "rahim içi araç" ve "doğum kontrolü" anahtar kelimeleri kullanılarak elde edilen 162 Türkçe YouTube videosu analiz edilmiştir. Video kalitesini değerlendirmek için DISCERN aracı ve Küresel Kalite Ölçeği (GQS) kullanılmıştır. Yükleyici kimliği ve içerik sınıflandırması da incelenmiştir.

Bulgular: Sağlık profesyonelleri tarafından yüklenen videolar en yüksek DISCERN ve GQS puanlarına sahipken, YouTuber'lar tarafından yüklenen videolar en düşük puanlara sahiptir. Düşük DISCERN ve GQS puanları ve bilimsel olarak yanlış veya eksik içerikle karakterize edilen yanıltıcı videolar, daha yüksek izlenme sayılarına sahip olma eğilimindedir.

Sonuç: YouTube'daki Türkçe dilindeki aile planlaması videolarının çoğu orta düzeyde kalite gösterse de yanıltıcı içeriğin yaygın popülaritesi endişe yaratmaktadır. Doğru bilgilere erişilebilirliği artırmak için, sağlık profesyonelleri ve kuruluşları kanıta dayalı, ilgi çekici dijital içerik üretimine öncelik vermelidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• aile planlaması
• YouTube
• DISCERN
• doğum kontrolü
• yanlış bilgilendirme
• sağlık okuryazarlığı

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışma, yalnızca çevrimiçi videoların analizini içerdiğinden etik kurul onayına gerek duymaz.

Kaynakça

1. 1. World Health Organization. Family planning/contraception methods. Geneva: WHO; 2023 [cited 2025 Jul 29]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/family-planning-contraception
2. 2. Sharma V, De Beni D, Robertson AS, Maurizio F. Why the promotion of family planning makes more sense now than ever before? J Health Manag 2020;22(2):206–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/09720634209355
3. 3. Bahamondes L, Porte M, Margatho D, de Amorim HS, Brasil C, Charles CM, Hidalgo MM. Maternal health among Venezuelan women migrants at the border of Brazil. BMC Public Health 2020;20:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09912-x
4. 4. Götmark F, Andersson M. Human fertility in relation to education, economy, religion, contraception, and family planning programs. BMC Public Health 2020;20:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-8331-7
5. 5. Fauser BC, Adamson GD, Boivin J, Chambers GM, de Geyter C, Dyer S, Zegers-Hochschild F. Declining global fertility rates and implications for family planning and family building: An IFFS consensus document. Hum Reprod Update 2024;30(2):153–173. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmad028
6. 6. Wietzke FB. Poverty, inequality, and fertility: The contribution of demographic change to global poverty reduction. Popul Dev Rev 2020;46(1):65–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/padr.12317
7. 7. Brandi K, Fuentes L. The history of tiered-effectiveness contraceptive counseling and the importance of patient-centered family planning care. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020;222(4):S873–S877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2019.11.1271
8. 8. Bietsch K, Williamson J, Reeves M. Family planning during and after the West African Ebola crisis. Stud Fam Plann 2020;51(1):71–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/sifp.12110

9. 9. Scott K, Ummer O, Shinde A, Sharma M, Yadav S, Jairath A, LeFevre AE. Another voice in the crowd: Changing family planning and child feeding practices through mHealth messaging in rural India. BMJ Glob Health 2021;6(Suppl 5):e005868. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-005868
10. 10. Mushy SE, Tarimo EA, Massae AF, Horiuchi S. Barriers to the uptake of modern family planning methods among female youth in Temeke, Tanzania: A qualitative study. Sex Reprod Healthc 2020;24:100499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.srhc.2020.100499
11. 11. Osman W, Mohamed F, Elhassan M, Shoufan A. Is YouTube a reliable source of health-related information? A systematic review. BMC Med Educ 2022;22(1):382. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03446-z
12. 12. Kim J, Youm H, Kim S, Choi H, Kim D, Shin S, Chung J. Influence of YouTube on digital health literacy and exercise intentions: The role of parasocial relationships. Behav Sci 2024;14(4):282. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14040282
13. 13. Abita Z, Girma D. Exposure to mass media family planning messages and factors among youth men in Ethiopia. Heliyon 2022;8(9):e10544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10544
14. 14. Sinai I, Omoluabi E, Jimoh A, Jurczynska K. Unmet need for family planning and barriers to contraceptive use in Kaduna, Nigeria: Culture, myths, and perceptions. Cult Health Sex 2020;22(11):1253–1258. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2019.1672894
15. 15. Mohamed F, Shoufan A. Users’ experience with health-related content on YouTube: An exploratory study. BMC Public Health 2024;24(1):86. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-17585-5
16. 16. DataReportal. Digital 2025: Turkey [Internet]. 2025 [cited 2026 Apr 16]. Available from: https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2025-turkey
17. 17. Ban S, Kim Y, Seomun G. Digital health literacy: a concept analysis. Digit Health. 2024;10:20552076241287894. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055207624128789
18. 18. Demir R, Kaya Odabaş R, Taşpınar A. Digital media use and health literacy levels of women in Turkey. Soc Work Public Health. 2024;39(2):199-209. https://doi.org/10.1080/19371918.2024.232258
19. 19. Kbaier D, Kane A, McJury M, Kenny I. Prevalence of health misinformation on social media-challenges and mitigation before, during, and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic: scoping literature review. J Med Internet Res. 2024;26:e38786. https://doi.org/10.2196/38786
20. 20. John JN, Gorman S, Scales D, Gorman J. Online misleading information about women’s reproductive health: a narrative review. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2025;40(5):1123-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-024-09118-6
21. 21. Wehrli S, Irrgang C, Scott M, Arnrich B, Boender TS. The role of social media data accessibility for infodemic management in the EU: A public health perspective. Front Public Health 2024;12:1378412. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1378412
22. 22. Sütcüoğlu BM, Güler M. Social media videos on contraceptive implants: An assessment of video quality and reliability. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2024;37(1):39–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpag.2023.08.004
23. 23. Ayaz F, Ayaz H. An analysis of theses on health communication and media. Atatürk İletişim Dergisi 2017;14:147–172.
24. 24. Balas EA, Chapman WW. Road map for diffusion of innovation in healthcare. Health Aff 2018;37(2):198–204. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1155
25. 25. Hacılar N, Düzcü T. Investigation of the effect of the five-factor personality model on the technology acceptance model in patients using structural equation modeling. Istanbul Gelisim University Journal of Health Sciences 2024;23:832–853. https://doi.org/10.38079/igusabder.1396593
26. 26. Islam KF, Awal A, Mazumder H, Munni UR, Majumder K, Afroz K, Hossain MM. Social cognitive theory-based health promotion in primary care: A scoping review. Heliyon 2023;9(4):e14889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14889
27. 27. Kite J, Chan L, MacKay K, Corbett L, Reyes-Marcelino G, Nguyen B, Freeman B. Social media effects in public health communication campaigns: A systematic review. J Med Internet Res 2023;25:e46345. https://doi.org/10.2196/46345
28. 28. Burapasikarin C, Manonai J, Wattanayingcharoenchai R. The effect of educational video on contraception utilization postpartum: A randomized trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2020;302:1503–1509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05710-3
29. 29. Jia X, Pang Y, Liu LS. Online health information seeking behavior: A systematic review. Healthcare 2021;9(12):1740. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9121740
30. 30. Shackleford M, Horvath A, Repetto M, Thi A, Twells R, Sanders M, Free L. Analysis of contraceptive videos on TikTok. AJOG Glob Rep 2024;4(3):100364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xagr.2024.100364
31. 31. Charnock D. The DISCERN handbook: Quality criteria for consumer health information. Oxford: Radcliffe Publishing; 1998:16-18.
32. 32. Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing the quality of medical information on the Internet. JAMA 1997;277(15):1244–1245. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1997.03540390074039
33. 33. Anuar H, Shah SA, Gafor H, Mahmood MI, Ghazi HF. Usage of Health Belief Model in health behavior: A systematic review. Malays J Med Health Sci 2020;16(11):2636–2646.
34. 34. Santos MJDO, Ferreira EMS, Ferreira MC. Predictors of condom use among college students. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2024;21(4):433. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21040433
35. 35. Bernard A, Langille M, Hughes S, Rose C, Leddin D, Van Zanten SV. A review of patient inflammatory bowel disease resources on the Web. Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102(9):2070–2077. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01325.x
36. 36. Döring N, Lehmann S, Schumann-Doermer C. Contraception on YouTube, Instagram, TikTok: A content analysis. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforsch Gesundheitsschutz 2023;66(9):990–999. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-023-03698-0
37. 37. Nickel B, Moynihan R, Gram EG, Copp T, Taba M, Shih P, et al. Social media posts about medical tests with potential for overdiagnosis. JAMA Netw Open. 2025;8(2):e2461940. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.61940
38. 38. Metzler H, Garcia D. Social drivers and algorithmic mechanisms on digital media. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2024;19(5):735-48. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231185
39. 39. Gram EG, Moynihan R, Copp T, Shih P, Albarqouni L, Akl E, et al. Addressing misleading medical information on social media: a scoping review of current interventions. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2025;30(6):420-33. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2025-113704
40. 40. Jia X, Pang Y, Liu LS. Online health information seeking behavior: a systematic review. Healthcare (Basel). 2021;9(12):1740. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9121740
41. 41. Liu D, Yang S, Cheng CY, Cai L, Su J. Online health information seeking, eHealth literacy, and health behaviors among Chinese internet users: cross-sectional survey study. J Med Internet Res. 2024;26:e54135. https://doi.org/10.2196/54135
42. 42. de Oliveira Collet G, de Morais Ferreira F, Ceron DF, de Lourdes Calvo Fracasso M, Santin GC. Influence of digital health literacy on online health-related behaviors influenced by internet advertising. BMC Public Health. 2024;24(1):1949. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19506-6
43. 43. Niemann J, Wicherski L, Glaum L, Schenk L, Stadler G, Richter M. YouTube and oral contraceptive use: A mixed-method analysis. PLoS One 2024;19(5):e0302316. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302316
44. 44. Pfender EJ, Devlin MM. What do social media influencers say about birth control? A content analysis of YouTube vlogs about birth control. Health Commun 2023;38(14):3336–3345. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2022.2149091
45. 45. Uhawenimana TC, Musabwasoni MGS, Nsengiyumva R, Mukamana D. Sexuality and sexual and reproductive health depiction in social media: Content analysis of Kinyarwanda YouTube channels. J Med Internet Res 2023;25:e46488. https://doi.org/10.2196/46488
46. 46. Kim JH, Kim HK. Evaluating articles on the content and quality of YouTube videos regarding women’s health: A scoping review. Korean J Women Health Nurs 2023;29(3):179. https://doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2023.08.19
47. 47. Lang JJ, Giffen Z, Hong S, Demeter J, El-Zawahry A, Sindhwani P, Ekwenna O. Assessing vasectomy-related information on YouTube: An analysis of the quality, understandability, and actionability of information. Am J Mens Health 2022;16(2):15579883221094716. https://doi.org/10.1177/15579883221094716
48. 48. World Health Organization. Infodemic [Internet]. 2026 [cited 2026 Apr 16]. Available from: https://www.who.int/health-topics/infodemic
49. 49. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Communication strategies [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2026 Apr 16]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/health-literacy/php/research-summaries/communication-strategies.html
50. 50. Abdekhoda M, Dehnad A. Strategies to combat infodemics in public health. Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal 2025;31(5):340-9. https://doi.org/10.26719/2025.31.5.340.
51. 51. Chiou H, Voegeli C, Wilhelm E, Kolis J, Brookmeyer K, Prybylski D. The future of infodemic surveillance as public health surveillance. Emerg Infect Dis. 2022;28(Suppl 1):S121. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2813.220696
52. 52. World Health Organization. Infodemics and misinformation negatively affect people’s health behaviours, new WHO review finds [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2026 Apr 16]. Available from: https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/01-09-2022-infodemics-and-misinformation-negatively-affect-people-s-health-behaviours--new-who-review-finds