ArticleJournal of Korean medical science2024
YouTube as a Source of Information on Public Health Ethics.
Article in Journal of Korean medical science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- YouTube as a source of patient information on erythema nodosum: an analysis of quality and reliability.Clinical rheumatology · 2026Article
- Analysis of YouTube videos on rheumatic diseases and pregnancy: a cross-sectional study.Rheumatology international · 2026Article
- Quality and Reliability of YouTube Videos on Poisonings, Insect Bites, and Envenomations.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- How to select high-quality health educational short videos on social media? insights from youtube and douyin.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Impact of YouTube User-Generated Content on News Dissemination and Youth Information Reception.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- How useful are YouTube videos on labial frenectomy? A quality review.BMC oral health · 2025Review
- Analysing YouTube as a health resource: quality and reliability of videos on pediatric appendicitis.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Quality and reliability of pediatric pneumonia related short videos on mainstream platforms: cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Evaluating the Quality and Reliability of YouTube as a Source of Information on Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: A Call to Publish More Quality Videos by Professionals.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Article
- YouTube as a source of information for stroke rehabilitation: a cross-sectional analysis of quality and reliability of videos.Rheumatology international · 2025Article
- Assessment of the quality and reliability of YouTube videos related to teleradiology in musculoskeletal and rheumatic diseases: a cross-sectional study.Rheumatology international · 2025Article
- Ethics for Disseminating Health-Related Information on YouTube.Journal of Korean medical science · 2024Article
- Spanish language version of the "Medical Quality Video Evaluation Tool" (MQ-VET): Cross-cultural AI-supported adaptation and validation study.Science progressArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPublic health ethics (PHE) is a dynamic area within bioethics that addresses the complex moral implications of public health measures in the face of growing health threats. YouTube is a powerful and widely used platform for disseminating health-related information. The primary objective of this study is to assess videos related to PHE on YouTube. The aim is to gauge the extent of misinformation in collecting PHE videos on the platform.
methodsOn October 25, 2023, a thorough investigation on YouTube was undertaken, employing pre-determined search phrases involving 'public health,' 'healthcare,' 'health services administration,' and 'health policy and ethics.' The research encompassed a total of 137 videos that were selected according to strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. The videos were evaluated using the Global Quality Scale to measure quality and the modified DISCERN tool to evaluate reliability. The researchers identified video sources and compared several video attributes across different quality groups.
resultsA total of 137 videos were analyzed, and 65 (47.45%) were classified as high quality, 52 (37.23%) as moderate quality, and 21 (15.32%) as low quality. In high-quality videos, academic, government, physician, and university-hospital sources predominated, whereas Internet users and news sources were connected with low-quality videos. Significant differences in DISCERN score, per day views, likes, and comments were seen across the quality groups (
conclusionAlthough nearly half of the videos were high-quality, low-quality videos attracted greater attention. Critical contributors to high-quality videos included academic, government, physician, and university-hospital sources. The findings highlight the importance of quality control methods on social media platforms and strategies to direct users to trustworthy health information. Authors should prioritize appropriate citations and evaluate YouTube and other comparable platforms for potential promotional low-quality information.
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.