Misinformation in spinal cord rehabilitation on YouTube: Enhancing standards for patient safety.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Özlem Karataş, Serpil Tuna, Seden Demirci
{"title":"Misinformation in spinal cord rehabilitation on YouTube: Enhancing standards for patient safety.","authors":"Özlem Karataş, Serpil Tuna, Seden Demirci","doi":"10.1177/10538127251369997","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundSpinal cord injury is a complex condition affecting millions globally, often requiring extensive rehabilitation. YouTube is increasingly utilized by spinal cord injury-patients and caregivers for rehabilitation information, despite potential misinformation risks. However, few studies have assessed the quality of spinal cord injury -related content on this platform.AimThis study evaluates the quality, reliability, and effectiveness of YouTube videos on spinal cord rehabilitation to identify credible resources and improve patient education.MethodsA systematic search was conducted on YouTube using keywords related to spinal cord injury rehabilitation, yielding 74 videos that met inclusion criteria. These were assessed independently by two reviewers for quality indicators using DISCERN, JAMA, and Global Quality Score criteria. Viewer engagement metrics such as views, likes, and comments were also analyzed.ResultsMost videos were of low to moderate quality, with only 24% rated as high quality. Videos uploaded by physicians received significantly higher quality ratings compared to those from other sources (<i>p</i> < 0.01), although their view counts were generally lower. Viewer engagement was positively correlated with likes and comments but inversely correlated with quality metrics, indicating that popular videos often lacked reliable information. Among the included videos, 28.4% were uploaded by physicians, 52.7% by physiotherapists, and 18.9% by others, providing insight into the source reliability.ConclusionThe overall quality of spinal cord injury rehabilitation videos on YouTube is low, posing risks for misinformation among patients. Efforts are needed to enhance the accessibility of scientifically accurate information. Healthcare professionals and digital platforms should collaborate to improve the quality of health-related videos, supporting informed decision-making for spinal cord injury patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":15129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"10538127251369997"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10538127251369997","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BackgroundSpinal cord injury is a complex condition affecting millions globally, often requiring extensive rehabilitation. YouTube is increasingly utilized by spinal cord injury-patients and caregivers for rehabilitation information, despite potential misinformation risks. However, few studies have assessed the quality of spinal cord injury -related content on this platform.AimThis study evaluates the quality, reliability, and effectiveness of YouTube videos on spinal cord rehabilitation to identify credible resources and improve patient education.MethodsA systematic search was conducted on YouTube using keywords related to spinal cord injury rehabilitation, yielding 74 videos that met inclusion criteria. These were assessed independently by two reviewers for quality indicators using DISCERN, JAMA, and Global Quality Score criteria. Viewer engagement metrics such as views, likes, and comments were also analyzed.ResultsMost videos were of low to moderate quality, with only 24% rated as high quality. Videos uploaded by physicians received significantly higher quality ratings compared to those from other sources (p < 0.01), although their view counts were generally lower. Viewer engagement was positively correlated with likes and comments but inversely correlated with quality metrics, indicating that popular videos often lacked reliable information. Among the included videos, 28.4% were uploaded by physicians, 52.7% by physiotherapists, and 18.9% by others, providing insight into the source reliability.ConclusionThe overall quality of spinal cord injury rehabilitation videos on YouTube is low, posing risks for misinformation among patients. Efforts are needed to enhance the accessibility of scientifically accurate information. Healthcare professionals and digital platforms should collaborate to improve the quality of health-related videos, supporting informed decision-making for spinal cord injury patients.

YouTube上脊髓康复的错误信息:提高患者安全标准。
脊髓损伤是一种影响全球数百万人的复杂疾病,通常需要广泛的康复治疗。尽管存在潜在的错误信息风险,但脊髓损伤患者和护理人员越来越多地利用YouTube获取康复信息。然而,很少有研究评估该平台上脊髓损伤相关内容的质量。目的评价YouTube视频对脊髓康复的质量、可靠性和有效性,以确定可靠的资源,提高患者教育水平。方法系统检索YouTube上与脊髓损伤康复相关的关键词,获得74段符合纳入标准的视频。由两名审稿人使用DISCERN、JAMA和Global quality Score标准对这些质量指标进行独立评估。我们还分析了观看量、点赞量和评论等观众参与指标。结果大多数视频质量为中低,只有24%被评为高质量。医生上传的视频质量评分明显高于其他来源的视频(p
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
0.00%
发文量
194
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation is a journal whose main focus is to present relevant information about the interdisciplinary approach to musculoskeletal rehabilitation for clinicians who treat patients with back and musculoskeletal pain complaints. It will provide readers with both 1) a general fund of knowledge on the assessment and management of specific problems and 2) new information considered to be state-of-the-art in the field. The intended audience is multidisciplinary as well as multi-specialty. In each issue clinicians can find information which they can use in their patient setting the very next day.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信