Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Public Health
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2024

Open Access 01-12-2024 | Research

Users’ experience with health-related content on YouTube: an exploratory study

Authors: Fatma Mohamed, Abdulhadi Shoufan

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2024

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

This study focuses on health-related content (HRC) on YouTube and addresses the issue of misinformation on this platform. While previous research centered on content evaluations by experts, this study takes a user-centered approach and aims to explore users’ experiences with and perceptions of HRC videos and to establish links between these perceptions and some socio-demographic characteristics including age, gender, profession, and educational level.

Methods

A quantitative research design was used in the study. 3,000 YouTube users responded to a 35-item anonymous questionnaire to collect information about the content they watch toward decision-making, their perceptions of the usefulness and bias of this content, what they identify as quality indicators for HRC, and what they recommend to improve the quality of such content on YouTube. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, frequency, and correlation analyses.

Results

The results reveal that 87.6 percent (n=2630) of the participants watch HRC on YouTube, and 84.7 percent (n=2542) make decisions based on what they watch. Exercise and bodybuilding videos are the most popular, with over half of the participants watching them. 40 percent of the users watch YouTube videos to decide whether to consult a doctor or adopt specific health-related practices. In contrast to evaluations by experts in previous studies, most respondents perceive HRC videos on YouTube as useful and do not find connections between video quality and surface features like the number of views and likes. Weak or no correlations were observed between the perceived usefulness of HRC videos and age, gender, profession, or educational level. Participants’ recommendations for enhancing HRC quality align with previous research findings.

Conclusions

Users turn to YouTube not only for health information but also as a decision-making tool. Combined with their generally positive attitudes towards content quality on this platform, this can have significant consequences for their health. Follow-up studies are needed to get more insights into decision-making behaviors and how users assess their decisions in retrospect.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Marchal N, Au H, Howard PN. Coronavirus news and information on YouTube. Health. 2020;1(1):0–3.
2.
Ranade AS, Belthur MV, Oka GA, Malone JD. YouTube as an information source for clubfoot: a quality analysis of video content. J Pediatr Orthop B. 2020;29(4):375–8.CrossRefPubMed
3.
4.
Lee J, Turner K, Xie Z, Kadhim B, Hong YR. Association Between Health Information-Seeking Behavior on YouTube and Physical Activity Among US Adults: Results From Health Information Trends Survey 2020. AJPM Focus. 2022;1(2):100035.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Naslund JA, Grande SW, Aschbrenner KA, Elwyn G. Naturally occurring peer support through social media: the experiences of individuals with severe mental illness using YouTube. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(10):e110171.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Ozdemir O, Diren F, Boyali O, Civelek E, Kabatas S. Metric evaluation of reliability and transparency of the videos about carpal tunnel syndrome surgery in the online platforms: assessment of YouTube videos’ content. Neurospine. 2021;18(2):363.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Haslam K, Doucette H, Hachey S, MacCallum T, Zwicker D, Smith-Brilliant M, et al. YouTube videos as health decision aids for the public: an integrative review. Can J Dent Hygiene. 2019;53(1):53.
8.
Bujnowska-Fedak MM, Wegierek P. The impact of online health information on patient health behaviours and making decisions concerning health. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(3):880.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Chidambaram S, Maheswaran Y, Chan C, Hanna L, Ashrafian H, Markar SR, et al. Misinformation About the Human Gut Microbiome in YouTube Videos: Cross-sectional Study. JMIR Formative Res. 2022;6(5):e37546.CrossRef
10.
Shoufan A, Mohamed F. YouTube and education: A scoping review. IEEE Access. 2022;10:125576–99.
11.
Thelwall M. Lifestyle information from YouTube influencers: some consumption patterns. J Doc. 2021;77(6):1209–22.CrossRef
12.
Enver N, Doruk C, Kara H, Gürol E, Incaz S, Mamadova U. YouTube™ as an information source for larynx cancer: a systematic review of video content. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2020;277:2061–9.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Kang E, Lee J, Kim KH, Yun YH. The popularity of eating broadcast: Content analysis of “mukbang’’ YouTube videos, media coverage, and the health impact of “mukbang’’ on public. Health Inform J. 2020;26(3):2237–48.CrossRef
14.
15.
Kington RS, Arnesen S, Chou WYS, Curry SJ, Lazer D, Villarruel AM. Identifying credible sources of health information in social media: Principles and attributes. NAM Perspect. 2021;n. pag. Web.
16.
17.
18.
Tekin SB, Bozgeyik B. Quality and Content Analysis of Hallux Valgus Videos on YouTube®. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2023;62(1):85–90.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Aktas BK, Demirel D, Celikkaleli F, Bulut S, Ozgur EG, Kizilkan Y, et al. YouTube™ as a source of information on prostatitis: a quality and reliability analysis. Int J Impot Res. 2023;1–6.
20.
Gerundo G, Ruvolo CC, Puzone B, Califano G, La Rocca R, Parisi V, et al. Personal protective equipment in Covid-19: Evidence-based quality and analysis of YouTube videos after one year of pandemic. Am J Infect Control. 2022;50(3):300–5.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Li M, Yan S, Yang D, Li B, Cui W. YouTube™ as a source of information on food poisoning. BMC Public Health. 2019;19:1–6.CrossRef
22.
Osman W, Mohamed F, Elhassan M, Shoufan A. Is YouTube a reliable source of health-related information? A systematic review. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22(1):382.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Tadbier AW, Shoufan A. Ranking educational channels on YouTube: Aspects and issues. Educ Inf Technol. 2021;26:3077–96.CrossRef
24.
Shoufan A. Estimating the cognitive value of YouTube’s educational videos: A learning analytics approach. Comput Hum Behav. 2019;92:450–8.CrossRef
25.
Shoufan A, Mohamed F. On the likes and dislikes of youtube’s educational videos: A quantitative study. In: Proceedings of the 18th annual conference on information technology education. USA: ACM; 2017. p. 127–132.
26.
Peer E, Brandimarte L, Samat S, Acquisti A. Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2017;70:153–63.CrossRef
27.
Palan S, Schitter C. Prolific. ac-A subject pool for online experiments. J Behav Exp Finance. 2018;17:22–27.
28.
Peer E, Rothschild D, Gordon A, Evernden Z, Damer E. Data quality of platforms and panels for online behavioral research. Behav Res Methods. 2022;54(4):1643–62.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Lee DY, Lehto MR. User acceptance of YouTube for procedural learning: An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. Comput Educ. 2013;61:193–208.CrossRef
30.
Sokolova K, Perez C. You follow fitness influencers on YouTube. But do you actually exercise? How parasocial relationships, and watching fitness influencers, relate to intentions to exercise. J Retail Consum Serv. 2021;58:102276.
31.
Melchionna A, Collà Ruvolo C, Capece M, La Rocca R, Celentano G, Califano G, et al. Testicular pain and youtube™: are uploaded videos a reliable source to get information? Int J Impot Res. 2023;35(2):140–6.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Bussey LG, Sillence E. The role of internet resources in health decision-making: a qualitative study. Digit Health. 2019;5:2055207619888073.PubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Onder ME, Zengin O. Quality of healthcare information on YouTube: psoriatic arthritis. Z Rheumatol. 2023;82(Suppl 1):30–7.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Ardrini DAM, Lubis D, Utami NWA. ‘I want what they’re eating’: College students’ experiences in watching food content on YouTube. Public Health Prev Med Arch. 2020;8(1):11–16.
35.
Sillence E, Briggs P, Harris PR, Fishwick L. How do patients evaluate and make use of online health information? Soc Sci Med. 2007;64(9):1853–62.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Madathil KC, Rivera-Rodriguez AJ, Greenstein JS, Gramopadhye AK. Healthcare information on YouTube: a systematic review. Health Inform J. 2015;21(3):173–94.CrossRef
37.
Basch CE, Basch CH, Hillyer GC, Meleo-Erwin ZC, Zagnit EA. YouTube videos and informed decision-making about COVID-19 vaccination: successive sampling study. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2021;7(5):e28352.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Rachmawati YL, Naibaho LVC, Aulia NR. Quality of Tooth-Whitening Videos Available on YouTube. Pesq Brasileira Odontopediatria Clín Integrada. 2023;23:e210232.CrossRef
39.
Fairchild R, Price M, Craig A, Dotters-katz S. Quality and accuracy of youtube videos about the COVID vaccine in pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2023;228(2):S774–5.CrossRef
40.
Kahlam A, Pai S, Kahlam J, Ahlawat S. Quality of YouTube Videos Related to Colorectal Cancer Screening. Cureus. 2023;15(1):e33684.
41.
Saposnik G, Redelmeier D, Ruff CC, Tobler PN. Cognitive biases associated with medical decisions: a systematic review. BMC Med Inform Decis Making. 2016;16(1):1–14.CrossRef
42.
FitzGerald C, Hurst S. Implicit bias in healthcare professionals: a systematic review. BMC Med Ethics. 2017;18(1):1–18.CrossRef
43.
Althubaiti A. Information bias in health research: definition, pitfalls, and adjustment methods. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2016;9:211–7.
44.
Rubin PH. Pharmaceutical marketing: Medical and industry biases. J Pharm Financ Econ Policy Forthcoming. 2004;13(1):65–79.
45.
Chen T. A systematic integrative review of cognitive biases in consumer health information seeking: emerging perspective of behavioral information research. J Doc. 2020;77(3):798–823.CrossRef
46.
Taherdoost H. A review of technology acceptance and adoption models and theories. Procedia Manuf. 2018;22:960–7.CrossRef
47.
Mueller SM, Jungo P, Cajacob L, Schwegler S, Itin P, Brandt O. The absence of evidence is evidence of non-sense: cross-sectional study on the quality of psoriasis-related videos on YouTube and their reception by health seekers. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(1):e11935.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
48.
Manchaiah V, Bellon-Harn ML, Michaels M, Swarnalatha Nagaraj V, Beukes EW. A content analysis of YouTube videos related to hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol. 2020;31(09):636–45.CrossRefPubMed
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
Langford AT, Orellana KT, Buderer N. Use of YouTube to watch health-related videos and participation in online support groups among US adults with heart disease, diabetes, and hypertension. Digit Health. 2022;8:20552076221118824. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​2055207622111882​2. PMID: 36046636.
54.
Epley N, Keysar B, Van Boven L, Gilovich T. Perspective taking as egocentric anchoring and adjustment. J Personal Soc Psychol. 2004;87(3):327.CrossRef
55.
Mohamed F, Shoufan A. Choosing YouTube videos for self-directed learning. IEEE Access. 2022;10:51155–66.CrossRef
56.
57.
58.
Metadata
Title
Users’ experience with health-related content on YouTube: an exploratory study
Authors
Fatma Mohamed
Abdulhadi Shoufan
Publication date
01-12-2024
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2024
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-17585-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

BMC Public Health 1/2024 Go to the issue

Study Protocol

Nature-based social interventions to address loneliness among vulnerable populations: a common study protocol for three related randomized controlled trials in Barcelona, Helsinki, and Prague within the RECETAS European project

Research

Association of physical activity and screen time with cardiovascular disease risk in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study

Research

The impact of China's universal two-child policy on total, preterm, and multiple births: a nationwide interrupted time-series analysis

Research

Analysis of the association between urinary glyphosate exposure and fatty liver index: a study for US adults

Research

Factors influencing psychological concerns about COVID-19 in South Korea: direct and indirect damage during the early stages of pandemic

Research

Chronic diseases and determinants of community health services utilization among adult residents in southern China: a community-based cross-sectional study