Korean J Women Health Nurs.  2023 Sep;29(3):179-189. 10.4069/kjwhn.2023.08.19.

Content and quality of YouTube regarding women’s health: a scoping review

• Kim JH
• Kim HK

• KMID: 2547153
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2023.08.19

Abstract

Purpose
This scoping review investigated the content and quality of YouTube videos on women’s health. Methods: A literature search of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, ERIC, and RISS databases was performed using the keywords “(‘youtube’/exp OR youtube OR ‘social media’/ exp OR ‘social media’ OR ((‘social’/exp OR social) AND (‘media’/exp OR media))) AND (‘female health care’ OR ((‘female’/exp OR female) AND (‘health’/exp OR health) AND (‘care’/exp OR care)))” from February 21 to 27, 2023. Peer-reviewed analytic studies in English or Korean that focused on women’s health using YouTube were included. Results: The review identified 21 articles that covered various themes related to women’s health, such as breast cancer, urinary disease, sexual health, pelvic organ prolapse, the human papillomavirus vaccine, Papanikolaou smears, contraception, women’s health information during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, obstetric epidural anesthesia, and placenta accreta. However, the overall quality of the content was low, inaccurate, unreliable, and misleading. Conclusion: This scoping review demonstrated that YouTube videos on women’s health covered diverse topics, but the quality of the content needed improvement. More reliable and high-quality videos produced by academic institutes and healthcare professionals specializing in women’s health are needed for social media to be usable as a reliable source of women’s health information. The high number of views and shares received by the videos underscores the importance of providing accurate and reliable information on women’s health.

Keyword

Information sources; Review; Social networking; Women’s health

Figure

• 

  Figure 1. Flow diagram for the literature search.

Reference

References

1. Joseph AM, Fernandez V, Kritzman S, et al. COVID-19 misinformation on social media: a scoping review. Cureus. 2022; 14(4):e24601. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.24601.

2. Atigan A. Analysis of YouTube videos on pregnant covid-19 patients during the pandemic period. Cureus. 2022; 14(10):e29934. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.29934.

3. Fan KS, Ghani SA, Machairas N, et al. COVID-19 prevention and treatment information on the internet: a systematic analysis and quality assessment. BMJ Open. 2020; 10(9):e040487. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040487.

4. Koskan A, Cantley A, Li R, Silvestro K, Helitzer D. College students’ digital media preferences for future HPV vaccine campaigns. J Cancer Educ. 2022; 37(6):1743–1751. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-021-02022-1.

5. Madathil KC, Rivera-Rodriguez AJ, Greenstein JS, Gramopadhye AK. Healthcare information on YouTube: a systematic review. Health Informatics J. 2015; 21(3):173–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458213512220.

6. Verhoeks C, Teunissen D, van der Stelt-Steenbergen A, Lagro-Janssen A. Women’s expectations and experiences regarding e-health treatment: a systematic review. Health Informatics J. 2019; 25(3):771–787. https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458217720394.

7. Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009; 26(2):91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.

8. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018; 169(7):467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850.

9. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005; 8:19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616.

10. Bidwell S, Jensen MF. E-text on health technology assessment (HTA) information resources. Chapter 3: Using a search protocol to identify sources of information: The COSI model [Internet]. Bethesda, MD: U.S. National Library of Medicine;2003. [updated 2003 Jun 14, cited 2019 Aug 20]. Available from: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/archive/20060905/nichsr/ehta/chapter3.html#COSI.

11. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, version 6.3 [Internet]. Cochrane;2022. [updated 2022 Feb; cited 2023 Feb 5]. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.

12. Sajadi KP, Goldman HB. Social networks lack useful content for incontinence. Urology. 2011; 78(4):764–767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2011.04.074.

13. Briones R, Nan X, Madden K, Waks L. When vaccines go viral: an analysis of HPV vaccine coverage on YouTube. Health Commun. 2012; 27(5):478–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2011.610258.

14. Kiriya J, Edwards P, Roberts I. Effect of emotional content on online video sharing among health care professionals and researchers (DIFFUSION): results and lessons learnt from a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2018; 8(4):e019419. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019419.

15. Abdulghani HM, Haque S, Ahmad T, et al. A critical review of obstetric and gynecological physical examination videos available on YouTube: content analysis and user engagement evaluation. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019; 98(30):e16459. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000016459.

16. Gursoy A, Peker H. Does YouTube provide reliable and high-quality information? Assessment of Pap smear test videos. Acta Cytol. 2020; 64(5):425–432. https://doi.org/10.1159/000507105.

17. Stephenson J, Bailey JV, Blandford A, et al. An interactive website to aid young women’s choice of contraception: feasibility and efficacy RCT. Health Technol Assess. 2020; 24(56):1–44. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta24560.

18. Yuksel B, Cakmak K. Healthcare information on YouTube: pregnancy and COVID-19. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2020; 150(2):189–193. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.13246.

19. Yurdaisik I. Analysis of the most viewed first 50 videos on YouTube about breast cancer. Biomed Res Int. 2020; 2020:2750148. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/2750148.

20. Baran C, Yilmaz Baran S. Youtube videos as an information source about urinary incontinence. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2021; 50(10):102197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogoh.2021.102197.

21. 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. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-021-01613-8.

22. Rosen NO, Muise MD, Vannier SA, Chambers CT, Scott H; #postbabyhankypanky Advisory Team. #postbabyhankypanky: an empirically based knowledge sharing initiative about sex and the transition to parenthood. Arch Sex Behav. 2021; 50(1):45–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01734-7.

23. Salman MY, Bayar G. Evaluation of quality and reliability of YouTube videos on female urinary incontinence. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2021; 50(10):102200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogoh.2021.102200.

24. Brar J, Khalid A, Ferdous M, Abedin T, Turin TC. Breast cancer screening literacy information on online platforms: a content analysis of YouTube videos. Breast Dis. 2022; 41(1):81–87. https://doi.org/10.3233/BD-201028.

25. Flinspach AN, Raimann FJ, Schalk R, et al. Epidural catheterization in obstetrics: a checklist-based video assessment of free available video material. J Clin Med. 2022; 11(6):1726. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11061726.

26. Güloğlu S, Özdemir Y, Basim P, Tolu S. YouTube English videos as a source of information on arm and shoulder exercise after breast cancer surgery. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2022; 31(6):e13685. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.13685.

27. Hong HJ. Development of parent-child cooperative sexuality education program for early adolescents and effectiveness analysis. Korean J Youth Stud. 2022; 29(4):357–385. https://doi.org/10.21509/KJYS.2022.04.29.4.357.

28. Hüsch T, Ober S, Haferkamp A, et al. Comparison of online health information between different digital platforms for pelvic organ prolapse. World J Urol. 2022; 40(10):2529–2534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-022-04129-6.

29. Laforet PE, Yalamanchili B, Hillyer GC, Basch CH. YouTube as an information source on BRCA mutations: implications for patients and professionals. J Community Genet. 2022; 13(2):257–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-022-00576-1.

30. Collà Ruvolo C, Califano G, Tuccillo A, et al. “YouTube™ as a source of information on placenta accreta: a quality ana lysis.”. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2022; 272:82–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2022.03.015.

31. Tam J, Porter EK, Lee UJ. Examination of information and misinformation about urinary tract infections on TikTok and YouTube. Urology. 2022; 168:35–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2022.06.030.

32. Sahin Y, Paslanmaz F, Ulus I, Yilmaz M, Dincer MM, Muslumanoglu AY. Quality and content analysis of female urethroplasty videos on YouTube. Low Urin Tract Symptoms. 2023; 15(1):24–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/luts.12468.

33. Ng JY, Munford V, Thakar H. Web-based online resources about adverse interactions or side effects associated with complementary and alternative medicine: a systematic review, summarization and quality assessment. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2020; 20(1):290. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-020-01298-5.

34. Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999; 53(2):105–111. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.53.2.105.

35. Kim HK. The role of childbirth educators in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Korean J Women Health Nurs. 2022; 28(1):1–3. https://doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2022.02.25.