ArticleDigital health
A cross-sectional study of the portrayal of childhood speech and language disorders in YouTube videos.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study examined meta-data, source, type of informational content, understandability, and actionability of YouTube content related to speech and/or language disorders.
methodThe 100 most widely viewed videos related to children with speech and/or language disorders were obtained. Meta-data and sources of each upload were identified. Type of informational content within the videos was analyzed. The Patient Education Material Assessment Tool for Audiovisual Materials was used to assess understandability and actionability.
resultsA significant difference between video source groups was found for length of video, thumbs-up, and thumbs-down, but not for number of views. The YouTube videos related to speech and/or language disorders covered a range of issues, although a majority of the content focused on signs/symptoms and treatment. Videos had close-to-adequate understandability (i.e. 68%), although poor actionability scores (i.e. 32%) were noted. Videos uploaded by professionals were superior to other upload sources in understandability, but no difference was noted between video source for actionability.
conclusionsStudy insights about meta-data, source, type of informational content, understandability, and actionability of YouTube videos may help professionals understand the nature of online content related to speech and/or language disorders. Study implications and recommendations for further research are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.