https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0914-0638
![Sample our Behavioral Sciences journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110801/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Behavioral-Sciences.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Objectives
This study aimed to investigate the quality and reliability of YouTube videos, as a source of lateral epicondylitis (LE).
Methods
In this cross-sectional study, 484 videos were analyzed by searching the YouTube platform with the keyword ‘lateral epicondylitis.’ Journal of the Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, modified DISCERN and Global Quality Scale (GQS) were used for quality and reliability assessments.
Results
A total of 298 videos were evaluated. High quality (GQS 4–5) was identified in 74 videos (24.8%), intermediate quality (GQS 3) in 84 videos (28.2%), and low quality (GQS 1–2) in 140 videos (47%). Of the videos, 57.7% (n = 41) uploaded by physician were of high quality. A significant difference was found between the low-intermediate-high-quality groups in terms of duration, number of views, number of likes, number of comments, likes per day, comments per day, video view ratio, JAMA score and modified DISCERN score (all p < 0.01). In videos uploaded by physicians; views, time since uploaded, JAMA score, modified DISCERN score, and GQS score were significantly higher than videos shared by trainers, health-related web sites, and independent users. The duration and viewing rates of the videos, the number of views, likes, comments, likes per day and comments per day were found to be significantly associated with JAMA, modified DISCERN, and GQS scores (p < 0.01).
Conclusion
About half of YouTube videos for LE were low quality. Most of the high-quality videos have been shared by physicians and these videos have been longer, more viewed, more liked and commented, and more reliable. Healthcare professionals should provide high-quality, unbiased, accurate and instructive information that is accessible to everyone on the YouTube platform.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s)