ReviewJournal of substance use and addiction treatment2024
Dissemination of health content through social networks: YouTube and opioid use disorders.
Review in Journal of substance use and addiction treatment, 2024. 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.
- Educational Value and Reliability of Exosome Therapy Videos on YouTube: A Cross-Sectional Quality Assessment.International wound journal · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Readability, Accessibility, and Quality of Online Health Information on Opioid Use Disorder: A Comparative Analysis of Government and Non-Government Websites.Advances in health information science and practice · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionMost Americans now access social media platforms, including YouTube, to obtain health information. However, few studies have evaluated the quality of YouTube content related to opioid use disorder (OUD), including medications for OUD (MOUD; buprenorphine) and harm reduction resources (e.g., naloxone). The purpose of this cross-sectional analysis was to assess the quality, accuracy, and reliability of MOUD and harm reduction-related video content available on YouTube.
methodsThe study team conducted a YouTube search between June 2022 and July 2022 using key words related to MOUD and harm reduction content (e.g., "suboxone," "methadone," "Narcan"). The 5 most viewed videos from each search term were analyzed for quality (i.e., Global Quality Scale; GQS), accuracy (i.e., JAMA Benchmark Criteria), and reliability (i.e., DISCERN). Videos that were non-English, duplicate, or that did not directly mention OUD, MOUD, or harm reduction were excluded from the review (N = 6).
resultsYouTube videos (N = 70) were mostly produced by medical professionals (27.1 %), independent nonmedical users (21.4 %; e.g., vloggers, individuals documenting their experiences), medical organizations (17.1 %; e.g., hospitals, treatment programs), and/or media (14.3 %; e.g., news agencies). The target audience was primarily the general public (65.7 %), people who use opioids (20.0 %), and healthcare providers (10.0 %). Videos containing MOUD content (N = 64, 61.4 %) mostly focused on suboxone (25.0 %), methadone (23.4 %), Sublocade (14.1 %), and subutex/buprenorphine (14.1 %). The median quality score was 2 based on the GQS with 3 videos receiving the highest quality rating (5). Two videos were highly rated for accuracy per all three JAMA Benchmark criteria. Videos produced by nonmedical educational channels had the highest overall reliability scores on the DISCERN criteria (median 4), followed by medical professionals (median 3), and medical organizations (median 2.5).
conclusionThe overall quality, accuracy, and reliability of MOUD and harm reduction related content posted on YouTube is poor. The lack of evidence-based content posted on YouTube reinforces the need for public health expert involvement in disseminating guideline-based content on social media.
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.