| Title |
YouTube™ as a Source of Instructional Videos on Bowel Preparation: a Content Analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Cancer Education, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13187-015-0888-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Adewale B. Ajumobi, Mazyar Malakouti, Alexander Bullen, Hycienth Ahaneku, Tisha N. Lunsford |
| Abstract |
Instructional videos on bowel preparation have been shown to improve bowel preparation scores during colonoscopy. YouTube™ is one of the most frequently visited website on the internet and contains videos on bowel preparation. In an era where patients are increasingly turning to social media for guidance on their health, the content of these videos merits further investigation. We assessed the content of bowel preparation videos available on YouTube™ to determine the proportion of YouTube™ videos on bowel preparation that are high-content videos and the characteristics of these videos. YouTube™ videos were assessed for the following content: (1) definition of bowel preparation, (2) importance of bowel preparation, (3) instructions on home medications, (4) name of bowel cleansing agent (BCA), (5) instructions on when to start taking BCA, (6) instructions on volume and frequency of BCA intake, (7) diet instructions, (8) instructions on fluid intake, (9) adverse events associated with BCA, and (10) rectal effluent. Each content parameter was given 1 point for a total of 10 points. Videos with ≥5 points were considered by our group to be high-content videos. Videos with ≤4 points were considered low-content videos. Forty-nine (59 %) videos were low-content videos while 34 (41 %) were high-content videos. There was no association between number of views, number of comments, thumbs up, thumbs down or engagement score, and videos deemed high-content. Multiple regression analysis revealed bowel preparation videos on YouTube™ with length >4 minutes and non-patient authorship to be associated with high-content videos. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 55 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 7% |
| Librarian | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Unknown | 21 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 25% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 9% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 5% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 16% |
| Unknown | 21 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 September 2015.
All research outputs
#14,232,642
of 22,818,766 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cancer Education
#507
of 1,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#135,298
of 263,145 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cancer Education
#11
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,818,766 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,133 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,145 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.