Assessment of the content and quality of YouTube videos on retinopathy of prematurity: a cross-sectional study

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the quality and reliability of YouTube videos as an educational resource about retinopathy of prematurity. Methods: Videos were sourced from YouTube using the search terms “retinopathy of prematurity” and “premature retinopathy” with the default settings. Each video was assessed on the following metrics: views, likes, dislikes, comments, upload source, country of origin, view ratio, like ratio, and video power index. The quality and reliability of the videos were evaluated by two independent researchers using the DISCERN questionnaire, the JAMA benchmarks, the Global Quality Score scale, the Health on the Net Code of Conduct, and the Ensuring Quality Information for Patients scale. Results: The study assessed 92 videos, the majority of which (42 videos, 45.7%) originated from the United States. Most of the videos focused on screening, pathophysiology, and diagnosis of retinopathy of prematurity (61.9%). The primary contributors were medical organizations (19 videos, 20.6%), nonacademic health channels (19 videos, 20.6%), and physicians (15 videos, 16.3%). Significant differences were found between the DISCERN (p=0.003), JAMA (p=0.001), Global Quality Score (p=0.003), Health on the Net Code of Conduct (p=0.006), and Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (p=0.001) scores among different video sources. However, the key video metrics did not differ. Using the DISCERN and Global Quality Score scales, the overall YouTube video content on retinopathy of prematurity was rated as moderate in quality. Using the Health On the Net Code of Conduct and Ensuring Quality Information for Patients scales, it was rated as high quality. Strong correlations were observed between the scores on all of the scales (p<0.001). Conclusion: Videos from medical organizations and healthcare centers were of a higher quality than those from nonmedical sources. Despite the varied foci of each evaluation scale, the strong correlation between them indicates that they provide reliable and comprehensive assessments of the quality of informational content.