Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2018 Feb 12;4(1):e3.
doi: 10.2196/mededu.8527.

Medical YouTube Videos and Methods of Evaluation: Literature Review

Brandy Drozd  1 , Emily Couvillon  2 , Andrea Suarez  1
Affiliations
Review

Medical YouTube Videos and Methods of Evaluation: Literature Review

Brandy Drozd et al. JMIR Med Educ. .

Abstract

Background: Online medical education has relevance to public health literacy and physician efficacy, yet it requires a certain standard of reliability. While the internet has the potential to be a viable medical education tool, the viewer must be able to discern which information is reliable.

Objective: Our aim was to perform a literature review to determine and compare the various methods used when analyzing YouTube videos for patient education efficacy, information accuracy, and quality.

Methods: In November 2016, a comprehensive search within PubMed and Embase resulted in 37 included studies.

Results: The review revealed that each video evaluation study first established search terms, exclusion criteria, and methods to analyze the videos in a consistent manner. The majority of the evaluators devised a scoring system, but variations were innumerable within each study's methods.

Conclusions: In comparing the 37 studies, we found that overall, common steps were taken to evaluate the content. However, a concrete set of methods did not exist. This is notable since many patients turn to the internet for medical information yet lack the tools to evaluate the advice being given. There was, however, a common aim of discovering what health-related content the public is accessing, and how credible that material is.

Keywords: YouTube; health literacy; internet; online education; social media; videos.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Search results and excluded studies.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Video data collected by various studies as of Nov 2016 (results based on all 37 studies reviewed).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Fox S. Pew Research Center. 2011. The social life of health information http://www.pewinternet.org/2011/05/12/the-social-life-of-health-informat...
    1. YouTube Statistics. https://www.youtube.com/yt/press/statistics.html .
    1. Hossler EW, Conroy MP. YouTube as a source of information on tanning bed use. Arch Dermatol. 2008 Oct;144(10):1395–1396. doi: 10.1001/archderm.144.10.1395. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bowers N, Chow C. Heart failure videos on YouTube - the good, the bad, and the ugly: A study on the utility and education value for patients, healthcare practitioners and learners. Can J Cardiol. 2016 Oct;32(10):S281. doi: 10.1016/j.cjca.2016.07.459. - DOI
    1. Gonzalez-Estrada A, Cuervo-Pardo L, Ghosh B, Smith M, Pazheri F, Zell K, Wang X-F, Lang DM. Popular on YouTube: a critical appraisal of the educational quality of information regarding asthma. Allergy Asthma Proc. 2015;36(6):e121–126. doi: 10.2500/aap.2015.36.3890. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources