Websites or Videos: Which Offer Better Information for Patients? A Comparative Analysis of the Quality of YouTube Videos and Websites for Cosmetic Injectables

Lianne Mulvihill

14 citations0/0 files storedPlastic & Reconstructive Surgery

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 Misinformation and Its Impacts Health Literacy and Information Accessibility

Abstract

BACKGROUND: YouTube is used by more than 70 percent of adults and 81 percent of 15- to 25-year-olds. The information quality of videos related to the two most performed aesthetic procedures-botulinum toxin type A (Botox) and soft-tissue filler injections-has not been assessed or compared to that of websites. METHODS: A YouTube search for "Botox" and "fillers" was performed in July of 2020, identifying the most popular health information videos. Quality was assessed using the validated Journal of American Medical Association, Health on the Net principles, and the DISCERN criteria in addition to a procedure-specific content score. Quality scores were compared between different groups of video contributors and against websites. RESULTS: A total of 720 measurements of quality were performed across 95 YouTube videos and 85 websites. The mean quality scores were as follows: Journal of the American Medical Association, 1.74/4 ± 0.718; Health on the Net, 6.66/16 ± 2.07; DISCERN, 40.0/80 ± 9.25; and content, 39.1/100 ± 11.9. Physician, nonphysician health professionals, and other (news, magazine channels, and influencers) were all of higher quality than patient-based videos (p < 0.001). The mean DISCERN percentage score for videos was 50.04 ± 11.57 and significantly less than that of websites, 55.46 ± 15.74 (p = 0.010). The mean content scores showed a similar result, 39.06 ± 11.92 versus 60.76 ± 17.65 (p < 0.001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Improvement is needed in the quality of YouTube videos related to aesthetic injectables. Plastic surgeons, who are the most frequent video contributors, are most qualified to provide this change. Plastic surgeons should include videos as part of their online presence, as they may help facilitate a greater viewership.

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 — 14 citations exist upstream.

References

2013A New Dimension of Health Care: Systematic Review of the Uses, Benefits, and Limitations of Social Media for Health Communication 2018Evaluating the Accuracy and Quality of the Information in Kyphosis Videos Shared on YouTube 2013Is Content Really King? An Objective Analysis of the Public's Response to Medical Videos on YouTube 2018Medical YouTube Videos and Methods of Evaluation: Literature Review 2019Effects of social media use on desire for cosmetic surgery among young women 2015The Influence of Social Media and Easily Accessible Online Information on the Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Practice: Literature Review and Our Own Experience 2017Social Media and the Plastic Surgery Patient 2019A Quality Analysis of Disc Herniation Videos on YouTube

Cited by

2022Educational quality and content of YouTube videos on diabetic macular edema

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.