Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38843520›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2024

YouTube as a Source of Patient Information on External Cephalic Version: Cross-Sectional Study.

Merle R van Dijk, Anne-Fleur van der Marel, Leonie E van Rheenen-Flach, Wessel Ganzevoort, Etelka Moll, Fedde Scheele, Joost Velzel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Merle R van DijkDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Onze Lieve Vrouwen Gasthuis, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-7319-7506
Anne-Fleur van der MarelDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Onze Lieve Vrouwen Gasthuis, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-3456-3321
Leonie E van Rheenen-FlachDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Onze Lieve Vrouwen Gasthuis, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-9073-5266
Wessel GanzevoortDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7243-2115
Etelka MollDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Onze Lieve Vrouwen Gasthuis, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-0784-2881
Fedde ScheeleDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Onze Lieve Vrouwen Gasthuis, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9593-257X
Joost VelzelDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwest Clinics, Alkmaar, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8960-9960

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith the global increase of cesarean deliveries, breech presentation is the third indication for elective cesarean delivery. Implementation of external cephalic version (ECV), in which the position of the baby is manipulated externally to prevent breech presentation at term, remains suboptimal. Increasing knowledge for caretakers and patients is beneficial in the uptake of ECV implementation. In recent decades, the internet has become the most important source of information for both patients and health care professionals. However, the use and availability of the internet also bring about concerns since the information is often not regulated or reviewed. Information needs to be understandable, correct, and easily obtainable for the patient. Owing to its global reach, YouTube has great potential to both hinder and support spreading medical information and can therefore be used as a tool for shared decision-making.

objectiveThe objective of this study was to investigate the available information on YouTube about ECV and assess the quality and usefulness of the information in the videos.

methodsA YouTube search was performed with five search terms and the first 35 results were selected for analysis. A quality assessment scale was developed to quantify the accuracy of medical information of each video. The main outcome measure was the usefulness score, dividing the videos into useful, slightly useful, and not useful categories. The source of upload was divided into five subcategories and two broad categories of medical or nonmedical. Secondary outcomes included audience engagement, misinformation, and encouraging or discouraging ECV.

resultsAmong the 70 videos, only 14% (n=10) were defined as useful. Every useful video was uploaded by educational channels or health care professionals and 80% (8/10) were derived from a medical source. Over half of the not useful videos were uploaded by birth attendants and vloggers. Videos uploaded by birth attendants scored the highest on audience engagement. The presence of misinformation was low across all groups. Two-thirds of the vloggers encouraged ECV to their viewers.

conclusionsA minor percentage of videos about ECV on YouTube are considered useful. Vloggers often encourage their audience to opt for ECV. Videos with higher audience engagement had a lower usefulness score compared to videos with lower audience engagement. Sources from medically accurate videos should cooperate with sources with high audience engagement to contribute to the uptake of ECV by creating more awareness and a positive attitude of the procedure, thereby lowering the chance for a cesarean delivery due to breech presentation at term.

Indexed as

breechcesareancesarean deliverychildbirthcross-sectional studyECVeducationengagementexternal cephalic versionhealth educationimplementationmedical informationpatient informationpregnancypregnant womenusefulnessvideoYouTube

Identifiers

PMID38843520
PMCPMC11190616

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.