YouTube videos about ICDs are often of poor quality with incomplete information

September 14, 2022

2 minutes to read

source:

Lee TJ et al. Presentation 2184630. Presented in: American College of Cardiology Quality Summit. 14-16 September 2022; Los Angeles.

Disclosures:
He has not made any relevant financial disclosures to me.


We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If this problem persists, please contact customerservice@slackinc.com.

A speaker reported that YouTube videos with information about implanted defibrillators were often of poor quality, and contained incomplete information about the device and potential outcomes.

Quality Value Analysis Information surrounding ICDs In YouTube videos at the American College of Cardiology’s top quality.

Graphical depiction of the data presented in the article

Data were derived from Lee TJ, et al. Presentation 2184630. Presented in: American College of Cardiology Quality Summit. 14-16 September 2022; Los Angeles.

“It is very important that patients have access to high-quality information given how difficult it can be to interact with medical professionals,” Thomas J. Lee, MSsaid, a medical student at Sidney Kimmel Medical College in Philadelphia, in a news release. “Often, a patient has to wait weeks or even months before they can answer their questions with confidence,” Lee told me. “The problem is that a lot of the educational videos on YouTube seem to be of high quality due to the hospital environment or the doctor’s narrative, but in reality, the video fails to Transferring the full picture to the development of the International Classification of Diseases. “

To better measure the quality of consumer health videos related to defibrillators and defibrillators, researchers on YouTube searched for videos using the term “implantable defibrillator” and ranked them using the modified DISCERN criteria – a tool for assessing the quality of consumer health information – and a specialist Electrophysiology novel content score has been reviewed.

Using a scale from 0 to 25, with higher scores indicating better quality of consumer health information, the researchers used the following qualitative cut-off scores: very poor (<9), poor (9-13), average (14-17), good (18-21) and excellent (22-25).

The score for the content of the novel reviewed by the electrophysiologist was similar but ranged from 0 to 10.

Fifty YouTube videos about ICDs were included in the analysis, of which 29 were from academic medical centers, 13 were from medical device companies, and eight were from independent uploaders.

Lee and colleagues determined that the overall quality of consumer health information published in YouTube videos was poor, with an average adjusted DISCERN score of 12.58 and an average score for new content of 3.68.

Videos created by medical device companies received lower adjusted DISCERN scores compared to those of academic medical centers (mean difference, 1.68) and independent uploaders (mean difference, 1.54; analysis of variance). s = .011) depending on the presentation.

Li and colleagues found that 88% of the videos included in the analysis failed to mention inappropriate ICD shock as the probability of occurrence.

In addition, the researchers saw a positive association between video duration and adjusted DISCERN score (s = 0.3; s = .034) and the degree of the novel content (s = 0.45; s = .001); However, they note that there is no relationship between video popularity metrics and video quality.

“Patients are likely to seek information about their medical conditions and procedures online primarily because of the convenience and familiarity with the Internet, especially YouTube,” Lee said in the statement. “Most people only have a limited time to talk to a doctor about the ICD status, so it would make sense for them to go online to learn more about it. While we can’t prevent our patients from getting information online, we don’t want to limit their access to information about their conditions. It is important that the medical community works to ensure that high-quality information that provides a complete picture of the treatment or procedure is available.”

References: