Assessing the quality of publicly available videos on MDMA‐assisted psychotherapy for PTSD

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Patients increasingly rely on the Internet for healthcare information. This study aimed to evaluate the quality of videos on 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)-assisted psychotherapy for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) on YouTube™. METHODS: YouTube™ was searched for the terms "MDMA" and "PTSD." The 100 most viewed videos were analyzed using three standard quality measures: Global Quality Scores (GQS), JAMA benchmark, and DISCERN. Viewer engagement features and source of upload, video duration, inclusion of patient narrative and/or MD/DO/PhD, the mention of lack of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, side effects, potential for abuse, and use in conjunction with psychotherapy were recorded. RESULTS: The videos were of poor quality (mean GQS: 2.26 ± 0.94/5, JAMA: 1.96 ± 0.45/4, and DISCERN: 29.5 ± 8.2/80). A significant positive association was found between video quality and duration (GQS: r = .5857, p < .0001, JAMA: r = .279, p = .0409, DISCERN: r = .5783, p < .0001). Videos including an MD/DO/PhD had the highest scores (GQS: 2.87/5 [1.22], p = .006, DISCERN: 38.35/80 [13.32], p < .0003). A minority of videos were uploaded by academic institutions (1%); most were from professional organizations (29%). No correlation was found between quality and viewer engagement features-number of views, subscribers, likes/dislikes, or comments. A majority mentioned that MDMA must be used in conjunction with psychotherapy (85%) and is not FDA-approved (82%) for PTSD. Only 32% of videos mentioned risks or potential for abuse. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the need for better quality of online health material and an opportunity for involvement of healthcare professionals in the dissemination of accurate health information via content creation. SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: This is the first study to examine publicly available information on the use of MDMA for PTSD.

Cite this work

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

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 28 citations exist upstream.

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