YouTube as a source of education in perioperative anesthesia for patients and trainees: a systematic review.

IF 3.4 3区医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY

Canadian Journal of Anesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-20 DOI:10.1007/s12630-024-02791-5

Matthew W Nelms, Arshia Javidan, Ki Jinn Chin, Muralie Vignarajah, Fangwen Zhou, Chenchen Tian, Yung Lee, Ahmed Kayssi, Faysal Naji, Mandeep Singh

{"title":"YouTube as a source of education in perioperative anesthesia for patients and trainees: a systematic review.","authors":"Matthew W Nelms, Arshia Javidan, Ki Jinn Chin, Muralie Vignarajah, Fangwen Zhou, Chenchen Tian, Yung Lee, Ahmed Kayssi, Faysal Naji, Mandeep Singh","doi":"10.1007/s12630-024-02791-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Online video sharing platforms like YouTube (Google LLC, San Bruno, CA, USA) have become a substantial source of health information. We sought to conduct a systematic review of studies assessing the overall quality of perioperative anesthesia videos on YouTube.Methods: We searched Embase, MEDLINE, and Ovid for articles published from database inception to 1 May 2023. We included primary studies evaluating YouTube videos as a source of information regarding perioperative anesthesia. We excluded studies not published in English and studies assessing acute or chronic pain. Studies were screened and data were extracted in duplicate by two reviewers. We appraised the quality of studies according to the social media framework published in the literature. We used descriptive statistics to report the results using mean, standard deviation, range, and n/total N (%).Results: Among 8,908 citations, we identified 14 studies that examined 796 videos with 59.7 hr of content and 47.5 million views. Among the 14 studies that evaluated the video content quality, 17 different quality assessment tools were used, only three of which were externally validated (Global Quality Score, modified DISCERN score, and JAMA score). Per global assessment rating of video quality, 11/13 (85%) studies concluded the overall video quality as poor.Conclusions: Overall, the educational content quality of YouTube videos evaluated in the literature accessible as an educational resource regarding perioperative anesthesia was poor. While these videos are in demand, their impact on patient and trainee education remains unclear. A standardized methodology for evaluating online videos is merited to improve future reporting. A peer-reviewed approach to online open-access videos is needed to support patient and trainee education in anesthesia.Study registration: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/ajse9 ); first posted, 1 May 2023.","PeriodicalId":56145,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Anesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie","volume":" ","pages":"1238-1250"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Anesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-024-02791-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Online video sharing platforms like YouTube (Google LLC, San Bruno, CA, USA) have become a substantial source of health information. We sought to conduct a systematic review of studies assessing the overall quality of perioperative anesthesia videos on YouTube.

Methods: We searched Embase, MEDLINE, and Ovid for articles published from database inception to 1 May 2023. We included primary studies evaluating YouTube videos as a source of information regarding perioperative anesthesia. We excluded studies not published in English and studies assessing acute or chronic pain. Studies were screened and data were extracted in duplicate by two reviewers. We appraised the quality of studies according to the social media framework published in the literature. We used descriptive statistics to report the results using mean, standard deviation, range, and n/total N (%).

Results: Among 8,908 citations, we identified 14 studies that examined 796 videos with 59.7 hr of content and 47.5 million views. Among the 14 studies that evaluated the video content quality, 17 different quality assessment tools were used, only three of which were externally validated (Global Quality Score, modified DISCERN score, and JAMA score). Per global assessment rating of video quality, 11/13 (85%) studies concluded the overall video quality as poor.

Conclusions: Overall, the educational content quality of YouTube videos evaluated in the literature accessible as an educational resource regarding perioperative anesthesia was poor. While these videos are in demand, their impact on patient and trainee education remains unclear. A standardized methodology for evaluating online videos is merited to improve future reporting. A peer-reviewed approach to online open-access videos is needed to support patient and trainee education in anesthesia.

Study registration: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/ajse9 ); first posted, 1 May 2023.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

将 YouTube 作为围术期麻醉患者和受训人员的教育来源：系统综述。

背景：YouTube（谷歌有限责任公司，美国加利福尼亚州圣布鲁诺）等在线视频共享平台已成为健康信息的重要来源。我们试图对评估 YouTube 上围术期麻醉视频整体质量的研究进行系统性回顾：我们检索了 Embase、MEDLINE 和 Ovid 数据库中从数据库开始到 2023 年 5 月 1 日发表的文章。我们纳入了将 YouTube 视频作为围术期麻醉信息来源进行评估的主要研究。我们排除了非英文发表的研究以及评估急性或慢性疼痛的研究。由两名审稿人对研究进行筛选并提取一式两份的数据。我们根据文献中发表的社交媒体框架对研究质量进行了评估。我们采用了描述性统计方法，以平均值、标准差、范围和 n/ 总 N (%) 来报告结果：在 8908 篇引用文献中，我们发现了 14 项研究，这些研究共研究了 796 个视频，内容长达 59.7 小时，观看次数达 4750 万次。在这 14 项评估视频内容质量的研究中，共使用了 17 种不同的质量评估工具，其中只有三种工具经过外部验证（全球质量评分、修改后的 DISCERN 评分和 JAMA 评分）。根据视频质量的总体评估评级，11/13（85%）项研究认为视频的总体质量较差：总体而言，作为围术期麻醉教育资源的YouTube视频的教育内容质量较差。虽然这些视频需求量很大，但它们对患者和受训人员教育的影响仍不明确。为了改进未来的报告，我们需要一种标准化的方法来评估在线视频。需要对在线开放视频进行同行评审，以支持麻醉领域的患者和受训人员教育：开放科学框架 ( https://osf.io/ajse9 ); 首次发布，2023 年 5 月 1 日。

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

Canadian Journal of Anesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie 医学-麻醉学

CiteScore

8.50

自引率

7.10%

发文量

161

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： The Canadian Journal of Anesthesia (the Journal) is owned by the Canadian Anesthesiologists’ Society and is published by Springer Science + Business Media, LLM (New York). From the first year of publication in 1954, the international exposure of the Journal has broadened considerably, with articles now received from over 50 countries. The Journal is published monthly, and has an impact Factor (mean journal citation frequency) of 2.127 (in 2012). Article types consist of invited editorials, reports of original investigations (clinical and basic sciences articles), case reports/case series, review articles, systematic reviews, accredited continuing professional development (CPD) modules, and Letters to the Editor. The editorial content, according to the mission statement, spans the fields of anesthesia, acute and chronic pain, perioperative medicine and critical care. In addition, the Journal publishes practice guidelines and standards articles relevant to clinicians. Articles are published either in English or in French, according to the language of submission.