YouTube videos about allergic rhinitis often misleading, lack useful information
Click Here to Manage Email Alerts
Less than half of the videos about allergic rhinitis posted on YouTube provided useful information, with more than one-third classified by researchers as misleading, according to a study published in Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology.
However, the online platform could be a reliable resource for patient education when content meets specific criteria, Celine Lund-Nielsen Remvig, BSc, research assistant with the Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences at the University of Copenhagen, and colleagues wrote in the study.
According to the researchers, patients have a growing interest in managing their own symptoms, and they are turning to YouTube for information. Yet anyone can post videos to the platform without any peer review, while an algorithm prioritizes videos based on engagement, increasing the potential for spreading misinformation.
Between June and August 2021, the researchers screened 230 videos, of which 86 met inclusion criteria. Those videos had a total of 201,457,429 views (median, 132,104) and a median 2,048 likes, 93 dislikes and 181 comments. They had a median duration of 284 seconds as well.
Researchers characterized the videos based on whether they were uploaded by a specialist, MD or health care provider (17.5%); a nonmedical provider (17.4%); hosts of television shows or YouTube channels (39.5%); associations (9.3%); companies (9.3%); or universities or government institutions (7%).
The videos uploaded by universities or hospitals had the highest median views at 973,695, although they only accounted for 6.5% of the total views, with videos from companies being the most viewed source at 59.9% of views, followed by television shows and YouTube channels at 23.4% of all views.
Further, videos by specialists, health care providers and non-MD health care providers had lower median views than the overall median.
Also, videos uploaded by television shows and YouTube channels received 66.9% of all the likes, 66.8% of all the dislikes and 54% of all the comments. Universities and hospitals had only 2% of likes and 2.2% of comments as well as 12.5% of dislikes.
The researchers additionally classified 37 (43%) videos as useful, meaning they conveyed scientifically correct information; 31 (36%) as misleading, or conveying at least one scientifically unproven detail; and 18 (21%) as neither useful nor misleading, meaning they did not provide useful information about epidemiology, symptoms or diagnostics.
The useful classified videos had a numerically higher median number of views (145,664 vs. 112,327) but fewer median likes (1,356 vs. 2,197) compared with misleading videos.
In addition to being the most common source of videos, television shows and YouTube channels accounted for 48% of the misleading videos as well, with only 32% of them considered useful. Overall, 80% of videos uploaded by sources that were not health care providers were misleading.
The specialists, MDs, non-MD health care providers and hospitals, however, accounted for 9.7% of misleading videos. All the videos posted by associations were considered useful, the researchers found.
Calling their study the first to evaluate YouTube as a source of information about allergic rhinitis, the researchers concluded that misleading videos are as popular as useful videos, indicating that viewers may not be able to distinguish between scientifically based information and misinformation.
The researchers suggested that YouTube could increase its utility by initiating a peer review or verification process conducted by health care professionals for videos with content related to health. Also, the researchers suggested, videos could include a label indicating whether a health care provider is the source of the video.
Perspective
Back to Top
Clifford Bassett, MD, FAAAAI, FACAAI
I am not surprised with this study’s findings. The problem with nonprofessionals providing medical information and guidance, not sourced through proper vetting, is that it can be inaccurate and misleading.
I have found from personal experience that the best source of reliable information, such as in health care videos, is our existing professional medical societies that provide useful and accurate online information. Most allergy societies have websites that provide extensive educational materials that are meant for the lay public’s use.
But even when information is from a trusted medical source, it is not a replacement or substitute for speaking with your medical provider for specific medical advice.
Collapse
Read more about
Click Here to Manage Email Alerts