How Informative Is YouTube Regarding Feeding in Infants with Cleft Lip and Palate?

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal Pub Date : 2024-05-01 Epub Date: 2022-12-14 DOI:10.1177/10556656221142194
Sukeshana Srivastav, Nitesh Tewari, Gregory S Antonarakis, Ashish Dutt Upadhyaya, Ritu Duggal, Shubhi Goel
{"title":"How Informative Is YouTube Regarding Feeding in Infants with Cleft Lip and Palate?","authors":"Sukeshana Srivastav, Nitesh Tewari, Gregory S Antonarakis, Ashish Dutt Upadhyaya, Ritu Duggal, Shubhi Goel","doi":"10.1177/10556656221142194","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the characteristics of popular videos on YouTube about the feeding of infants with cleft lip and palate (CLP) and analyze the adequacy of information provided by them.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A cross-sectional design was used.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>YouTube was systematically searched for consecutive relevant videos about the feeding of infants with CLP, using predefined keyword combinations, without any limitations on language or duration. Scrutiny of the top 50 videos for each keyword combination was performed and a self-designed data-extraction sheet was used. A content adequacy index was developed by an expert group, and used to assess content adequacy, classifying it into categories from excellent to poor.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From an initial retrieval of 200 videos, 42 were included in the final assessment. The videos originated from nine different countries, with more than half coming from the USA and in English. Five of the videos came from the channel of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association. Content adequacy analysis showed that no video could be classified as excellent, while 33.3% were classified as optimal, 21.4% as suboptimal and 45.2% as poor.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The content adequacy of the majority of videos on YouTube, relating to the feeding of infants with CLP was inadequate, with only one third of them achieving optimal content adequacy. Efforts must be made to develop informative and standardized videos for social media and video-sharing platforms, perhaps through professional associations to ensure that families with an infant with CLP receive appropriate information.</p>","PeriodicalId":55255,"journal":{"name":"Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656221142194","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/12/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To assess the characteristics of popular videos on YouTube about the feeding of infants with cleft lip and palate (CLP) and analyze the adequacy of information provided by them.

Design: A cross-sectional design was used.

Methods: YouTube was systematically searched for consecutive relevant videos about the feeding of infants with CLP, using predefined keyword combinations, without any limitations on language or duration. Scrutiny of the top 50 videos for each keyword combination was performed and a self-designed data-extraction sheet was used. A content adequacy index was developed by an expert group, and used to assess content adequacy, classifying it into categories from excellent to poor.

Results: From an initial retrieval of 200 videos, 42 were included in the final assessment. The videos originated from nine different countries, with more than half coming from the USA and in English. Five of the videos came from the channel of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association. Content adequacy analysis showed that no video could be classified as excellent, while 33.3% were classified as optimal, 21.4% as suboptimal and 45.2% as poor.

Conclusions: The content adequacy of the majority of videos on YouTube, relating to the feeding of infants with CLP was inadequate, with only one third of them achieving optimal content adequacy. Efforts must be made to develop informative and standardized videos for social media and video-sharing platforms, perhaps through professional associations to ensure that families with an infant with CLP receive appropriate information.

YouTube 在唇腭裂婴儿喂养方面的信息量有多大?
目的评估YouTube上有关唇腭裂婴儿喂养的热门视频的特点,并分析这些视频提供的信息是否充分:设计:采用横断面设计:使用预定义的关键词组合,在不限制语言和时间的情况下,系统地搜索 YouTube 上连续出现的与唇腭裂婴儿喂养相关的视频。对每个关键词组合的前 50 个视频进行审查,并使用自行设计的数据提取表。专家小组制定了内容适当性指数,用于评估内容适当性,并将其划分为从优到劣的类别:从最初检索到的 200 部视频中,有 42 部被纳入最终评估。这些视频来自 9 个不同的国家,其中一半以上来自美国,使用英语。其中五部视频来自美国腭裂颅面协会的频道。内容充分性分析表明,没有视频可被归类为优秀,33.3%的视频被归类为最佳,21.4%的视频被归类为次佳,45.2%的视频被归类为差:结论:YouTube 上大多数与中枢神经系统疾病婴儿喂养相关的视频内容不够充分,只有三分之一的视频达到最佳内容充分度。必须努力为社交媒体和视频共享平台开发信息丰富的标准化视频,或许可以通过专业协会来确保有 CLP 婴儿的家庭获得适当的信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
36.40%
发文量
215
期刊介绍: The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal (CPCJ) is the premiere peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary, international journal dedicated to current research on etiology, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment in all areas pertaining to craniofacial anomalies. CPCJ reports on basic science and clinical research aimed at better elucidating the pathogenesis, pathology, and optimal methods of treatment of cleft and craniofacial anomalies. The journal strives to foster communication and cooperation among professionals from all specialties.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信