Are Y ou T ube videos accurate and reliable on basic life support and cardiopulmonary resuscitation?

Serpil Yaylacı · Mustafa Serınken · Cenker Eken · Özgür Karcıoğlu · Atakan Yılmaz · Hayri Eliçabuk +1 more

50 citations0/0 files storedEmergency Medicine Australasia

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Social Media in Health Education Cardiac Arrest and Resuscitation Health Literacy and Information Accessibility

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to investigate reliability and accuracy of the information on YouTube videos related to CPR and BLS in accord with 2010 CPR guidelines. METHODS: YouTube was queried using four search terms 'CPR', 'cardiopulmonary resuscitation', 'BLS' and 'basic life support' between 2011 and 2013. Sources that uploaded the videos, the record time, the number of viewers in the study period, inclusion of human or manikins were recorded. The videos were rated if they displayed the correct order of resuscitative efforts in full accord with 2010 CPR guidelines or not. RESULTS: Two hundred and nine videos meeting the inclusion criteria after the search in YouTube with four search terms ('CPR', 'cardiopulmonary resuscitation', 'BLS' and 'basic life support') comprised the study sample subjected to the analysis. Median score of the videos is 5 (IQR: 3.5-6). Only 11.5% (n = 24) of the videos were found to be compatible with 2010 CPR guidelines with regard to sequence of interventions. Videos uploaded by 'Guideline bodies' had significantly higher rates of download when compared with the videos uploaded by other sources. Sources of the videos and date of upload (year) were not shown to have any significant effect on the scores received (P = 0.615 and 0.513, respectively). The videos' number of downloads did not differ according to the videos compatible with the guidelines (P = 0.832). The videos downloaded more than 10,000 times had a higher score than the others (P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: The majority of You-Tube video clips purporting to be about CPR are not relevant educational material. Of those that are focused on teaching CPR, only a small minority optimally meet the 2010 Resucitation Guidelines.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 50 citations exist upstream.

References

2010YouTube as a source of information on cardiopulmonary resuscitation 2013YouTube as a source of clinical skills education

Cited by

2018YouTube and food allergy: An appraisal of the educational quality of information 2017Social Media Usage for Patients and Healthcare Consumers: A Literature Review 2019Assessment of the Accuracy of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Videos in English on YouTube according to the 2015 AHA Resuscitation Guidelines 2016The reliability of national videos related to the kidney stones on YouTube 2020Colonoscopy videos on YouTube: Are they a good source of patient education?

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.