https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4838-300X
![Sample our Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing & Allied Health journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5944/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Medicine-Dentistry-Nursing-Allied-Health.jpg"})
Abstract
Background
Patient education is a key element in the management of asthma.
Aims
This study aimed to evaluate the popularity and usefulness of YouTube videos on asthma.
Methods
Two authors screened and evaluated the 200 most popular videos. Data on likes, dislikes, views, comment, source of uploader, days since upload, and usefulness were recorded and included for analyses. The usefulness of the videos was categorized as follows: useful, misleading, or neutral. Misleading videos provided at least one scientifically incorrect detail, whereas useful videos contained scientifically correct information.
Results
A total of 130 videos were included, and the total number of views was 100,290,242 with a total duration of 29 h and 8 min. While 26.6% of videos were uploaded by TV shows and YouTube channels, only 7.7% were uploaded by lung specialists. 65.4% of the videos contained scientifically correct information, whereas 18.5% contained misleading information. Although videos from medical professionals had a higher quality than videos from YouTube channels and TV shows, the latter were more popular. Misleading videos had numerically, but not statistically significant higher views compared with useful videos.
Conclusions
YouTube videos on asthma are popular in terms of viewer interaction, and the popularity is not restricted to videos uploaded by professional sources. Although more than half of the videos were found to be useful, a non-negligible proportion of videos were assessed as misleading. The usefulness of YouTube videos on asthma is variable and initiatives should be taken to increase the potential of YouTube as an useful source in patient education.
Declaration of interest
Howraman Meteran has received honoraria for lectures and advisory board from GSK, Teva, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Airsonett AB, and ALK-Abelló within the past five years.
The other authors have no conflict of interest.
Funding
The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.