ArticleJournal of education and health promotion2021
Content analysis of educational videos on hand hygiene during COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in Journal of education and health promotion, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A feasibility study of the use of medical clowns as hand-hygiene promoters in hospitals.PloS one · 2022Article
- Assessment of the efficacy of a video-based hybrid teaching module of oxygen therapy and critical care area troubleshooting in nursing professionals managing COVID-19 patients.Journal of education and health promotion · 2022Article
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
backgroundOnline platforms are the most popular mode of entertainment, simultaneously imparting knowledge and education. During COVID pandemic, there was a sudden influx of educational videos on social media/websites with a purpose of spreading the information about hand hygiene (HH) practices. The aim of this study was to explore and assess the HH videos based on its content and technical quality to promote the learning experience of videos. MATERIALS AND
methodsHH videos from the official sites of five international health organizations and 42 national health institutes were assessed based on their availability of the HH videos. Verified YouTube videos on HH since January 2020 were further screened and assessed using the author's designed validated checklist. Each video was systematically evaluated and scored against the seven categories, namely introduction, audio, visuals/background, speaker/demonstrator, content, timing, and appeal.
resultsA total of 50 videos were assessed for analysis. Of these, 82% of videos scored >50%, i.e., 14. Among low scorer, seven videos were from YouTube channel. Majority of the videos were technically sound, 44% aroused interest, 82% had a simple, understandable message; in around 46% of the videos, the presenter was a healthcare worker; and in 24%, the information was accurate as per the World Health Organization guidelines.
conclusionsThis study concluded that most of the HH videos were found to be just above average in their content quality and technicality.
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.