Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 29619

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2024 | Month : February | Volume : 18 | Issue : 2 | Page : OC09 - OC11 Full Version

Quality of Reliability of Information on H3N2 Influenza in Youtube: A Cross-sectional Study


Published: February 1, 2024 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2024/66566.19089
Gurinderjeet Singh, Harshita Chandrashekhar Devadiga, Rashmi Prakash, Dakshin Meenashi Sundaram, Jahnavi Thokala Sasimohan, Sagal Pannu

1. Intern, Department of Internal Medicine, Government Medical College, Patiala, Punjab, India. 2. Intern, Department of Internal Medicine, Dr. DY Patil, School of Medicine, Nerul, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India. 3. Intern, Department of Internal Medicine, Adichunchanagiri Institute of Medical Sciences, B.G. Nagara, Bellur, Karnataka, India. 4. Junior Resident, Department of Internal Medicine, ESIC Medical College and PGIMSR, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. 5. Student, Department of Internal Medicine, Kumaran Hospitals and Rela Institute, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. 6. Student, Department of Internal Medicine, Punjab Institute of Medical Sciences, Jalandhar, Punjab, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Harshita Chandrashekhar Devadiga,
Legend Apartment, Vakola, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400055, Maharashtra, India.
E-mail: h.devadiga2@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Influenza is a highly communicable viral respiratory illness known to cause outbreaks, such as the current H3N2 outbreak in India. YouTube is one of the most popular sources to obtain information regarding symptoms, treatments, and prevention of diseases like influenza in the general public.

Aim: To assess the quality and reliability of information related to H3N2 influenza using the Global Quality Score (GQS) and reliability score, respectively.

Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted to evaluate the type of information, quality, and reliability of videos about Influenza H3N2 on YouTube using the GQS and the Reliability Score (DISCERN) scale, respectively. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to assess differences in quality and reliability depending on the type of uploader.

Results: The study found that 85% of videos focused on prevention/vaccination, 83.3% discussed the cause/aetiology of influenza, while only 31.7% covered investigations/tests. News agencies uploaded the most videos (46.7%), followed by doctors (18.3%), with minimal contribution from hospitals (8.3%). News agencies had the highest Video Power Index (VPI) compared to other groups, and there were no significant differences in GQS score across different groups.

Conclusion: Verified information from proper resources should be uploaded by responsible healthcare professionals like doctors and health organisations. The videos should have an exceptional reliability score and Global Quality Index. The quality of content should be easy to understand for the general public and should provide additional sources of information, educating the viewer to contact his/her physician concerning the diagnosis and further evaluation of the same.

Keywords

Global quality score, Influenza, Social-media

Influenza is an acute viral respiratory illness that affects children and adults worldwide. In majority of cases, it presents as a mild, self-limiting disease involving the upper respiratory tract. However, it can lead to more severe manifestations such as pneumonia and death, especially in high-risk groups such as children, the elderly, pregnant women, and immunocompromised individuals. It is highly communicable and can cause seasonal outbreaks, such as the current H3N2 outbreak in India, and global pandemics, such as the H1N1 strain in 2009 (1). The internet and social media, being cheap and accessible, are increasingly being used to acquire health-related information by patients who do not have quick and easy access to healthcare (2). They are also used by healthcare workers and facilities to provide patient education and for the promotion of their services (3). YouTube, a popular and freely accessible social media platform, can be used by users to obtain and/or convey information regarding symptoms, treatments, and prevention of diseases. However, videos on YouTube are not promoted based on scientific and medical accuracy, and the information conveyed through some videos is unverified and often misleading (4). The existing gaps in the literature involve a lack of comprehensive scrutiny of health information dissemination on popular social media channels, emphasising the necessity of this study to bridge the gap and contribute valuable insights into the reliability of public health information online. The study addresses a critical need for a systematic evaluation of influenza-related information on social media platforms, specifically YouTube, and introduces novelty by assessing the quality, reliability, and characteristics of such content.

Material and Methods

The observational study (cross-sectional) was conducted virtually in March 2023. Since this study was performed to assess data on a social media platform and did not involve humans, ethical committee approval was not sought.

YouTube, a well known social media platform, was used to collect data using the search terms “influenza,” “influenza treatment,” “influenza vaccine,” “influenza virus,” “influenza 2023,” and “H3N2”; one search by each of the six authors. Each author had to search and scrutinise 15 appropriate YouTube videos based on the following criteria.

Inclusion criteria: YouTube videos relevant to the topic “influenza,” video length between 1-20 minutes, and the language being English or Hindi.

Exclusion criteria: YouTube videos not relevant to the topic “influenza,” video length less than one minute or more than 20 minutes, and languages other than English or Hindi; or duplicate videos.

These YouTube videos were assessed based on various parameters: Baseline characteristics of YouTube videos such as the number of views, comments, likes, channel subscribers, video duration, and the age of the video. The type of information about influenza in the video included symptoms, vaccination, diagnosis, prevention, treatment, and patients sharing their experience.

The popularity of the video was assessed using the VPI values calculated according to the formula: VPI=like count/(like count+dislike count)×100 (5).

Quality and reliability of YouTube videos were assessed using the GQS and the DISCERN score, respectively (5). The GQS score ranges from 1-5, where 1 indicates very poor quality and 5 indicates very good quality. The DISCERN score has five questions related to reliability. “Yes” is scored as 1 and “no” as 0. The total score is added up to get a final score (5).

Statistical Analysis

The statistical analysis was performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software, IBM Corp, Version 21.0, released in 2012, Armonk, NY. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to assess the difference in quality and reliability depending on the type of uploader.

Results

A total of 90 videos were assessed by all authors, out of which 60 videos meeting the inclusion criteria were considered for this study. The total number of views was 4,617,419. Present study revealed that a large number of videos (85%) provided information about prevention/vaccination, while very few videos (31.9%) discussed investigations/tests of Influenza.

(Table/Fig 1) displays the characteristics of the analysed videos. The maximum number of videos was uploaded by news agencies (46.7%), with fewer from doctors (18.3%) and minimal contribution from hospitals (8.3%). Around 35% of the videos were uploaded in the last week, while approximately 33.33% were uploaded over a year ago.

(Table/Fig 2) illustrates the type of information circulated about influenza. 85% of the videos contained information about prevention/vaccination, and 83.3% included information about the cause/aetiology of influenza.

(Table/Fig 3) presents the comparison of GQS, reliability score, and VPI based on the type of uploaders-doctors, hospitals, healthcare organisations, news agencies, and others (patients or family members of patients, pharmaceutical agencies, uploaders whose identity could not be verified, etc.). The results indicate a significant difference in the VPI of the different uploaders compared in the study (p-value <0.001). The videos uploaded by news agencies had the highest VPI compared to other groups, indicating the highest reach among viewers. There was significant difference in reliability score (DISCERN) between the groups.

Discussion

This study aimed to assess the quality and reliability of YouTube videos providing information about the influenza virus. A total of 60 videos were analysed, of which 35% were uploaded within the last week and 33.3% were uploaded more than a year ago. Despite the videos being uploaded within several weeks to a year, there is a significant amount of reach among the viewers, with a total number of views amounting to 4,617,419. The number of likes totaled 54,176, and there were 8,241 comments in total. The different types of uploaders whose videos were analysed included doctors, hospitals, healthcare organisations, news agencies, and others. The maximum number of videos (46.7%) was uploaded by news agencies, compared to the 18.3% uploaded by doctors. Unfortunately, videos uploaded by hospitals accounted for only about 8.3%, despite viewers considering them to be a more reliable source compared to news agencies.

Social media serves as a public space for open discussion, acknowledging its potential for spreading rumours and misinformation during pandemics. While it serves as a platform for sharing health information, experts emphasise the need for health professionals to control and counteract false beliefs about communicable diseases (6),(7),(8). This study revealed that about 85% of the videos contained facts about the vaccines, while Garcia HI and Giménez JT, reported that 59% of their videos mentioned the benefits of the influenza vaccine (9). This signifies that several videos are conveying information about influenza vaccines, which can significantly impact the viewer’s opinions about vaccines. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that correct information is available on YouTube (10). In present study, 80% of the videos were successful in imparting knowledge about the symptoms, in contrast to the study by Parabhoi L et al., where it was 4.01% in a sample size of 349 videos (11). Present study found that 83.3% of the videos provided details about the cause and aetiology of influenza, while the study by Pandey A et al., revealed that they found only 61.3% of the videos useful (12). This difference could be due to the different methods of selecting videos in the two studies.

This study revealed that there was no significant difference in the quality of YouTube videos uploaded by doctors, hospitals, news agencies, and others. However, the difference in reliability (DISCERN) was statistically significant. In contrast, a study by Kallur A et al., indicated that only the videos by healthcare professionals like doctors had the highest credibility, as opposed to videos by alternative medicine practitioners (13). Similarly, in present study, videos posted by doctors had a high DISCERN score. Akyol Onder EN and Ertan P reviewed 43 videos and concluded that the videos uploaded by doctors, health organisations, and the government had higher quality and the ability to disseminate accurate, reliable, and useful health-related information to the general public, which was a similar finding to present study (14). The variability in different studies can be attributed to chance or regional differences in the information presented in the videos, or different methodologies used.

A study by Chan C et al., found that 35% of videos provided data about vaccine efficacy and 28% about vaccine side-effects (15). However, in present study, 85% of the videos provided information about prevention measures and vaccines.

Healthcare professionals perceive virtual communities as valuable sources of clinically relevant and high-quality information, empowering them to make more informed decisions in their practice (16),(17),(18). To combat misinformation, healthcare professionals should first receive training on misinformation and social media, including building their social media presence (16),(19),(20). They can combat misinformation on social media using a two-phased conceptual model. The first phase involves authentication, where professionals verify the accuracy of social media posts through internal and external processes. If misinformation is identified, the second phase, correction, includes preparation (reflection, revelation, relation, respect) and dissemination (private priming, public priming, public rebuttal, private rebuttal). This model offers practical guidance for healthcare professionals and health authorities in identifying and correcting health misinformation on and off social media (19).

Limitation(s)

The present study had several limitations. Firstly, it is estimated that more than 100 hours of video are uploaded every minute, and the number of likes, dislikes, and comments are also expected to change daily. However, the present study only reviewed 60 videos, and the time period of the study was only one day. The reason for selecting 60 videos was based on an individual’s capacity to view no more than 60 videos a day. Interobserver bias can also be attributed as a limitation in terms of GQS and reliability score.

Conclusion

The videos uploaded by the news agency had a significantly higher reach (VPI) compared to other uploaders. There was a statistically significant difference in the reliability (DISCERN) of videos based on uploaders, but not in the quality (GQS). Continuous scrutiny of healthcare information on social media platforms is necessary to ensure correct decision-making. Healthcare organisations and government agencies should come together to plan a strategy to ensure that accurate and reliable healthcare-related information is available on social media.

References

1.
Krammer F, Smith GJD, Fouchier RAM, Peiris M, Kedzierska K, Doherty PC, et al. Influenza. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2018;4(1):3. Doi: 10.1038/s41572-018-0002-y. [crossref][PubMed]
2.
Parija PP, Tiwari P, Sharma P, Saha SK. Determinants of online health information- seeking behavior: A cross-sectional survey among residents of an urban settlement in Delhi. J Educ Health Promot. 2020;9:344. Doi: 10.4103/jehp.jehp 238 20. [crossref][PubMed]
3.
Ventola CL. Social media and health care professionals: Benefits, risks, and best practices. P T. 2014;39(7):491-520.
4.
Osman W, Mohamed F, Elhassan M, Shoufan A. Is YouTube a reliable source of health-related information? A systematic review. BMC Medical Education. 2022;22(1):382. Doi: 10.1186/s12909-022-03446-z. [crossref][PubMed]
5.
Cakmak G. Evaluation of scientific quality of youtube video content related to umbilical hernia. Cureus. 2021;13(4):e14675. Doi: 10.7759/cureus.14675. [crossref]
6.
Suarez LV, Alvarez GJ. Prevalence of health misinformation on social media: Systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(1):e17187. Doi: 10.2196/17187. [crossref][PubMed]
7.
Muhammed TS, Mathew SK. The disaster of misinformation: A review of research in social media. Int J Data Sci Anal. 2022;13(4):271-85. Doi: 10.1007/ s41060-022-00311-6. [crossref][PubMed]
8.
Wu L, Morstatter F, Carley KM, Liu H. Misinformation in social media: Definition, manipulation, and detection. ACM SIGKDD Explor. 2019;21(1):80-90. Doi: 10.1145/3373464.3373475. [crossref]
9.
Garcia HI, Giménez JT. YouTube as a source of influenza vaccine information in Spanish. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(2):727. Doi: 10.3390/ ijerph18020727. [crossref][PubMed]
10.
Ngai CSB, Singh RG, Yao L. Impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on social media virality: Content analysis of message themes and writing strategies. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24(7):e37806. Doi: 10.2196/37806. [crossref][PubMed]
11.
Parabhoi L, Sahu RR, Dewey RS, Verma MK, Kumar Seth A, Parabhoi D. YouTube as a source of information during the COVID-19 pandemic: A content analysis of YouTube videos published during January to March 2020. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2021;21(1):255. Doi: 10.1186/s1291l-021-01613-8. [crossref][PubMed]
12.
Pandey A, Patni N, Singh M, Sood A, Singh G. YouTube as a source of information on the HlNl influenza pandemic. Am J Prev Med. 2010;38(3):e01- e03. Doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.11.007. [crossref][PubMed]
13.
Kallur A, Albalbissi A, Carillo-Martin I, Boonpheng B, Kallur L, Kherallah Y, et a1. Doctor YouTube’s opinion on seasonal influenza: A critical appraisal of the information available to patients. Digit Health. 2020;6:2055207620906968. Doi: 10.1177/2055207620906968. [crossref][PubMed]
14.
Akyol Onder EN, Ertan P. YouTube as a source of information on COVID-19 and dialysis. Ther Apher Dial. 2022;26(6):1202-10. Doi: 10.1111/1744-9987.13801. [crossref][PubMed]
15.
Chan C, Sounderajah V, Daniels E, Acharya A, Clarke J, Yalamanchili S, et al. The reliability and quality of youtube videos as a source of public health information regarding COVID-19 vaccination: Cross-sectional study. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2021;7(7):e29942. Doi: 10.2196/29942. [crossref][PubMed]
16.
Rolls K, Hansen M, Jackson D, Elliott D. How health care professionals use social media to create virtual communities: An integrative review. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18(6):e166. Doi: 10.2196/jmir.5312. [crossref][PubMed]
17.
Sinclair P, Kable A, Levett-Jones T. The effectiveness of internet-based e-learning on clinician behavior and patient outcomes: A systematic review protocol. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015;13(1):52-64. Doi: 10.11124/ jbisrir-2015-1919. [crossref][PubMed]
18.
Rolls KD, Hansen MM, Jackson D, Elliott D. Intensive care nurses on social media: An exploration of knowledge exchange on an intensive care virtual community of practice. J Clin Nurs. 2020;29(7-8):1381-97. Doi: 10.1111/jocn.15143. [crossref][PubMed]
19.
Bautista JR, Zhang Y, Gwizdka J. Healthcare professionals’ acts of correcting health misinformation on social media. Int J Med Inform. 2021;148:104375. Doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2021.104375. [crossref][PubMed]
20.
Bautista JR, Zhang Y, Gwizdka J. US Physicians’ and nurses’ motivations, barriers, and recommendations for correcting health misinformation on social media: Qualitative interview study. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2021;7(9):e27715. Doi: 10.2196/27715.[crossref][PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2024/66566.19089

Date of Submission: Jul 24, 2023
Date of Peer Review: Oct 11, 2023
Date of Acceptance: Jan 05, 2024
Date of Publishing: Feb 01, 2024

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? No
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? No
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. No

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Jul 24, 2023
• Manual Googling: Nov 16, 2023
• iThenticate Software: Jan 03, 2024 (9%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

EMENDATIONS: 7

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com