YouTube video analysis as a source of information for patients on impacted canine
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
International Orthodontics 2019; 17: 769–775
Websites:
www.em-consulte.com
www.sciencedirect.com
Original article
YouTube video analysis as a source of
information for patients on
impacted canine
Aylin Pasaoglu Bozkurt 1, Selin Gaş 2, Özge Özdal Zincir 2
Available online: 27 August 2019
1. Beykent University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Orthodontics, Istanbul,
Turkey
2. Beykent University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial
Surgery, Istanbul, Turkey
Correspondence:
Aylin Pasaoglu Bozkurt, Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Beykent
University, Istanbul, 34500, Turkey.
pasaylin@hotmail.com
Keywords Summary
YouTube
Impacted canine Objective > To investigate video content on YouTubeTM related to impacted canine and impacted
Internet canine surgery.
Video Materials and Methods > In this cross-sectional study, the term "impacted canine tooth'' was
Orthodontics searched on YouTube TM . After excluding duplicates, irrelevant videos, non-English-language
videos, no audio-no video contents, sixty-one videos were independently examined by
3 reviewers. Videos were categorized as "not useful'', "slightly useful'', "moderately useful'',
and "very useful'' by using an 8-point score list for evaluating the value of the videos in
providing patients information about impacted canine teeth and surgery. Chi-square test was
performed for categorical variables and differences between groups were compared with
Kruskal–Wallis. Correlations were analysed using Spearman test. Statistical significance was
set P < 0.05.
Results > Most of the videos, 42.6%, n = 26 were uploaded by healthcare professionals [dentists,
orthodontists, surgeons] and 29,5%, n = 18 were uploaded by laypersons for sharing personal
experiences. There were 3 [4.9%] not useful videos, 15 [24.5%] slightly useful videos, 27 [44.2%]
moderately useful videos, and 16 [26.2%] very useful videos. There was no significant difference
between the viewing rate according to the source of upload [P = 0.398 > 0.05]. There was a
significant difference between the interaction index according to the source of upload. This
difference was in the laypersons and the others [.033 < 05].
Conclusion > Healthcare specialists should be aware of the content of the video-sharing platforms
and direct their patients to correct and reliable e-information resources.
769
tome 17 > n84 > December 2019
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ortho.2019.08.014
© 2019 CEO. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.A. Pasaoglu Bozkurt, S. Gaş, Ö Özdal Zincir
Original article
Mots clés Résumé
YouTube
Canine incluse Analyse vidéo YouTube comme source d'information pour les patients sur les canines
Internet incluses
Vidéo
Objectif > Étudier le contenu de vidéos présentes sur YouTubeTM concernant les canines incluses et
Orthodontie
leur traitement chirurgical.
Matériels et méthodes > Dans cette étude transversale, l'expression "canine incluse'' a été
recherchée sur YouTubeTM. Après avoir exclu les doublons, les vidéos non pertinentes, les vidéos
non anglophones, les vidéos sans contenu audio et sans contenu vidéo, soixante-et-une vidéos
ont été examinées de façon indépendante par trois examinateurs. Les vidéos ont été classées
dans les catégories "pas utiles'', "légèrement utiles'', "modérément utiles'' et "très utiles'' en
utilisant une grille d'évaluation sur 8 points pour évaluer la valeur des vidéos qui fournissent aux
patients des informations sur les canines incluses et sur leur traitement chirurgical. Le test du x2 a
été effectué pour les variables catégorielles et les différences entre les groupes ont été compa-
rées avec Kruskal–Wallis. Les corrélations ont été analysées à l'aide du test de Spearman. La
signification statistique a été fixée à p < 0,05.
Résultats > La majorité des vidéos [42,6%, n = 26] ont été téléchargées par des professionnels de
la santé [dentistes, orthodontistes, chirurgiens] et [29,5%, n = 18] par des profanes pour partager
leur expérience personnelle. Il y avait 3 [4,9%] vidéos non utiles, 15 [24,5%] vidéos légèrement
utiles, 27 [44,2%] vidéos modérément utiles et 16 [26,2%] vidéos très utiles. Il n'y a pas de
différence significative du taux de visionnage en fonction de la source de téléchargement
[p = 0,398> 0,05]. Il existe une différence significative de l'indice d'interaction en fonction de
la source du téléchargement. Cette différence se situe au niveau des catégories "profanes'' et
"autres'' [.033 < 05].
Conclusion > Les spécialistes de la santé devraient connaître le contenu des plateformes de
partage vidéo et canaliser leurs patients pour corriger et fiabiliser les ressources d'information en
ligne.
Introduction subjects are surgery time, bleeding, complications, pain and effect
Maxillary canines are the second most commonly impacted teeth, on life quality. Although both surgeons and orthodontists provide
after the third molars. Impaction of the canine is seen in 1% -3% of detailed information about the surgery, this is usually not enough
the general population [1]. Maxillary canine impaction incidence is for the patient.
more than twice that of mandibular canine impaction. Bilateral Nowadays, with encyclopedias mostly out of use, the most
impaction takes 8% percentage of all maxillary canine impaction important source we use to access information is the Internet.
cases [2,3]. Palatally localisation is seen more than twice that of Mostly patients consult the Internet both to find medical infor-
labially localisation. Various etiologic factors such as sufficient mation and to share their own experience [7]. It is documented
space for eruption, ankylosis of the permanent canine, systemic, that internet sites are very useful for supplying health informa-
and genetic reasons can cause impaction [4]. The location of the tion to laypeople [8].
canine tooth for ideal occlusion is very important. Although there YouTubeTM is a website created in 2005 to share free videos and
are such treatment alternatives as canine autotransplantation, is currently the second most popular website following Goo-
extraction of the impacted canine, and prosthetic replacement, gleTM [Alexa 2018]. Vast visual content of videos, the sharing of
the most desirable approach is surgical exposure of the canine and patient experiences and easy access all make YouTube a popular
orthodontic treatment [5]. The orthodontist and the surgeon place to seek information [9].
should work together if the impacted tooth is maintained with Studies evaluating YouTubeTM content on dentistry topics such as
orthodontic treatment. Whether the canine is placed labially or root canal treatment [10], orthognathic surgery [11], lingual
palatinally, the most common method used to bring impacted orthodontic treatment [12] and dental implants [13] have
canines into occlusion is by placing an attachment and using occurred. To our knowledge, no studies have evaluated the
orthodontic forces [6]. Patients with impacted canines are always content and quality of YouTubeTM videos on impacted canine
full of question and curious about surgery. The most questioned and impacted canine surgery.
770
tome 17 > n84 > December 2019YouTube video analysis as a source of information for patients on impacted canine
Original article
Material and methods TABLE I
Usefulness score.
Google Trends Application is an online search tool to see how
often specific keywords have been queried over a specific period Scoring item Score
of time. After a search for impacted canine using this applica- Definition 1
tion, we determined that the most commonly used terms were
impacted canine tooth and impacted canine surgery [Google Indications 1
Trends, 2018]. The search parameters were restricted to the past Contraindications 1
one year and the "Incognito''/''Worldwide'' settings to prevent Advantages 1
restrictions based on user history and to expand search results.
Procedures 1
YouTubeTM (https://www.youtube.com) was searched using
the keyword "impacted canine tooth'' on 12 November, Complication 1
2018, to evaluate the information on impacted canine. We used Prognosis and survival 1
"sort by relevance'' as the default filter for a YouTubeTM search.
Cost information 1
We limited the search result to the first 120 videos. The first
120 videos appearing for the search term were viewed and Total score 8
analysed; most studies utilizing YouTube TM as a search engine
Score 0: not useful; scores 1-3: slightly useful, scores 4-6: moderate useful; scores 7-8:
have used 60-200 videos [14], and most YouTube TM users scan very useful.
only the first 30 videos; which means the first 3 pages [15].
Three researchers [A.P.B, S.G and Ö.Ö.Z] came together for this
work; because the topic of impacted canines is related to their
disciplines. A.P.B is an orthodontist specialist, S.G and Ö.Ö.Z are The quality of the videos was also rated. Excellent, moderate
oral surgeon specialists. Three researchers evaluated the videos and poor were used to describe the flow of the video, informa-
in an independent way. Initial screening of the videos was done tion accuracy, quality of the images or animation, video caption
to determine which video should be included or excluded. In or title harmony with the video.
order not to change the results of the research, the source Disagreements between researchers were resolved by search-
locators [URLs] of the videos were recorded. Inclusion criteria ing the literature. The study was deemed exempt by the Faculty
for the videos were: English language; primary content related of Dentistry Research and Ethics Committee.
to impacted canine teeth and impacted canine surgery; and
acceptable audio-visual quality. Videos which were non-English, Statistical analysis
duplicate, poor audio-visual quality and non-informative were All statistical evaluations were performed in the SPSS software
not included in this study. Videos found in multiple parts were program (IBM SPSS Statistics 21). The inter-observer agreement
considered as one and no limitations were placed on video was calculated as a kappa score. Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was
length. For each video, we saved the information title, date used for normal distribution of data. Chi2 test was performed for
of upload, country of origin, number of likes and dislikes, categorical variables and differences between groups were
number of views, number of comments and duration. compared with Kruskal–Wallis. Correlations were analysed using
We categorized videos as "not useful'', "slightly useful'', "moder- Spearman test. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.
ately useful'', and "very useful'' by using a score list for evaluating
the value of the videos in providing patients with information Results
about impacted canine teeth and surgery. The scores ranged from The first 120 videos were screened for relevance based on our
0 to 8: A score of 8 indicated that the video mentioned definition criteria. A sample of 61 videos were included to the study. In
about impacted canine teeth, orthodontic treatment and surgery, particular, 3 non-English, 18 no-audio, 2 no-video, 14 duplicated in
indications and contraindications of surgery, advantages, proce- whole or in part and 22 irrelevant videos were excluded (table II).
dures involved and used representative clinical images to The mean length of the videos was 4:10 min [range from 12 s to
describe surgery, complications, prognosis and survival, and cost 19:22 min]. The mean number of views for impacted canine
information. Score 0 indicated that the video contained no infor- tooth was 62 403 [range: 28–1 248 809 views]. Viewer interac-
mation about impacted canine orthodontic treatment and sur- tion with the videos was generally positive; the mean interac-
gery procedures. Each area of content was given a possible tion index score was %1,06 1.91 [range from 0.06 to
1 point, for a total of 8 possible points, which was considered 10.71%], (table III).
as the "total content score'' of that video (table I). We also Most of the videos [42.6%, n = 26] were uploaded by users in
categorized videos as patient's experience, educational and sci- the USA, 11.4% [n = 7] by users in Europe (UK, Poland, and
entifically erroneous or unproven information. Greece), the source of upload for nine videos [14.7%] could not
771
tome 17 > n84 > December 2019A. Pasaoglu Bozkurt, S. Gaş, Ö Özdal Zincir
Original article
TABLE II to the source of upload. This difference is in the layperson and
Reasons for excluding criteria for videos selection. the other [.033 < 05].
There is a statistically significant relationship between the num-
Reasons for exclusion ber of views, duration, number of likes and number of dislikes
No audio 18 according to the efficiency ratio. Very useful videos in terms of
viewing had been watched significantly more than other videos,
No video 2
while in terms of not useful and very useful videos took longer
Not in English 3 than others [Note that the number of useful videos is negligi-
Duplicate 14 ble]. Very useful videos have more like and dislike than others.
However, there is no significant relationship between efficiency
Not related to subject 22
ratio and number of comments.
Total exclusions 59 There is a significant relationship between efficiency ratio and
viewing rate [P = 0.011, P < 0.05]. According to this test, it can
be said that very useful videos are viewed at a significantly
higher rate than other videos [Mean rank value 39.44].
There is no significant relationship between efficiency ratio and
be determined. Many of the videos [42.6%, n = 26] were interaction index [P = 0.266, P > 0.05]. There is no significant
uploaded by healthcare professionals (dentists, orthodontists, relationship between video type and video demographics
surgeons) and 29,5%, n = 18 were uploaded by laypersons for [P > 0.05]. There is no significant relationship between video
sharing personal experience. Most of the videos [67,2%, n = 41] quality and video demographics [P > 0.05].
were uploaded for giving educational information. 19 [31,1%] The significant relationship between source of upload and video
videos showed excellent quality, 27 videos [44,3%] showed demographics is only in terms of the number of comments
moderate quality and 15 videos [24,6%] showed poor quality [P = 0.024, P ˂ 0.05]. The videos uploaded by the laypersons
(table IV). are interpreted significantly more than others, while the videos
An 8-point usefulness score was devised to evaluate the use- uploaded by other are interpreted significantly less.
fulness of the videos in describing the situation and procedures Spearman correlation analysis showed significant correlation
of impacted canine teeth and surgery. The overall usefulness between interaction index and video demographics
score of included videos ranged from 0 to 8 [mean = 4.68]. [P ˂ 0.05]. Number of views [61%], number of likes [33%],
There were 3 [4.9%] not useful videos, 15 [24.5%] slightly number of dislikes [50%] shows negative correlation with inter-
useful videos, 27 [44.2%] moderately useful videos, and action index.
16 [26.2%] very useful videos. There is a significant correlation between interaction index
There is no significant difference between the viewing rate and viewing rate. [r = 0.413, P ˂ 0.05]. Forty % negative
according to the source of upload [P = 0.398 > 0.05]. There is correlation are seen between interaction index and viewing
a significant difference between the interaction index according rate.
TABLE III
Video demographics data.
n Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum
Valid Missing
Number of views 61 0 62403,00 187858,681 28 1248809
Duration 61 0 4:10 3:40 0:12 19:22
Number of likes 61 0 153,34 337,048 2 2100
Number of dislikes 60 1 17,67 53,774 0 395
Number of comments 60 1 42,00 72,832 0 369
Interaction index 61 0 1,0655 1,91541 ,06 10,71
Viewing rate 61 0 5341,3999 12733,20262 5,55 78145,23
772
tome 17 > n84 > December 2019YouTube video analysis as a source of information for patients on impacted canine
Original article
TABLE IV
Video Frequency data according to the source of upload, type of video and video quality.
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Source of upload
Universities and hospitals 9 14,8 14,8
Healthcare professionals (dentist, orthodontist, surgeon) 26 42,6 42,6
Health information web sites 6 9,8 9,8
Layperson 18 29,5 29,5
Other 2 3,3 3,3
Total 61 100,0 100,0
Type of video
Patient's experience 18 29,5 29,5
Educational 41 67,2 67,2
Scientifically unproven information 2 3,3 3,3
Total 61 100,0 100,0
Video quality
Excellent 19 31,1 31,1
Moderate 27 44,3 44,3
Poor 15 24,6 24,6
Total 61 100,0 100,0
There is no significant correlation between video quality and [10]. As a result of this increasing use of the Internet for health
efficiency ratio, efficiency ratio and type of video, efficiency ratio issues, professionals should do more research on this topic.
and source of upload. The overall interobserver agreement The content of YouTubeTM related to dental issues including root
calculated as weighted kappa score was 0.81 [range: 0.80– canal treatment, lingual orthodontic treatment, orthognathic
0.83]. surgery, dental implants and orthodontic treatment have been
evaluated [10–13,17]. This is the first study to analyse the quality
of YouTubeTM information on impacted canine teeth. To the
Discussion authors' knowledge, many studies have been published on
Being popular, liked, sharing everything in our lives and making impacted canine and treatment [1–6] but none of them have
people see are the concepts of this century [16]. As our lives dealt with YouTubeTM videos.
become digital, it is a thing of the past to consult with elders or There are lots of possible YouTubeTM search terms with informa-
to investigate using encyclopedias. When we question a situa- tion on impacted canines. The more general and the most
tion or want to get information about it; we first search internet sought-after terminology was chosen to address the issue in
sites GoogleTM and YoutubeTM [Alexa 2018]. general terms. The number of likes and dislikes can be an
Internet sites have an important place not only in our daily indicator for the YoutubeTM audience to consider a video as
routine but also in matters that are important in our lives. useful. Rating videos like this type is non-scientific and subjec-
Nowadays, internet and video-sharing websites like YouTubeTM tive; but the general population can benefit from this evalua-
are very popular among patients seeking information about tion. Recording a 'like' for a video is optional and mostly it is not
their health and health procedures but; the information and related to content.
videos that are created and put on the platform without any There are limitations to this study. The evaluation of the videos
scientific filtering can wrongly and incompletely inform patients was performed subjectively by three people according to our
773
tome 17 > n84 > December 2019A. Pasaoglu Bozkurt, S. Gaş, Ö Özdal Zincir
Original article
own checklist; however, this is the standard method of assess- quality of information, patients will continue to use YouTubeTM
ment used in several other publications in this area [12–15]. as a method to source information online [19,20].
Also, the content on YoutubeTM is changing every day, because We limited our study to watching only English language videos.
of this; results will depend on the time at which the search took But YouTube is a very wide platform. There are also very useful
place. A more comprehensive or field-based approach may be videos made with other languages. For this reason, the content
more effective in searching YouTubeTM content relevant to and usefulness of the information on the internet should be
impacted canines. evaluated not only in English but also in other languages [21].
There are many filters available to classify videos in order of According to content analysis, unfortunately the number of
'view count', 'upload date' and 'rating' as well as video duration. videos with high content useful videos was very limited. This
We used "sort by relevance'' as the default filter for a YouTubeTM shows that YouTubeTM is inadequate as a source of information
search because it is the most commonly used filter by the about impacted canine treatment. According to these findings, it
general public. Also, this is the most preferred default filter is very important for dental professionals and medical organ-
for a YouTubeTM search among studies [10,12]. isations to be aware of the information available online. If
We limited the search result to the first 120 videos. The first professionals are aware of this information, they will minimize
120 videos appearing for the search term were viewed and the amount of incorrect information being obtained by patients.
analysed; most studies utilizing YouTubeTM as a search engine There is nothing wrong with a patient's inherent need for
have used 60-200 videos [14], and the majority of YouTubeTM information and curiosity regarding their future surgical proce-
users scan only the first page videos [15]. dures. What is important, however, is that the incorrect infor-
When the video content was analysed, the surgical procedure of mation that is followed is unnecessarily stressing on the patient
the impacted canine treatment was the most frequently queried and adversely affects the quality of life. For this reason, health
subject in all search terms. This suggests that among the dental care professionals should always be careful [22–24].
professionals and laypeople, surgery procedures would be the
most relevant component of impacted canine tooth. Our study
Conclusion
showed that most of the videos [42.6%, n = 26] were uploaded
by healthcare professionals (dentists, orthodontists, surgeons) You TubeTM should not be used as a trusted source of knowledge
relevant to impacted canine teeth to give educational informa- regarding impacted canine teeth and surgery. Using the Internet
tion. It is notable that videos posted on YouTubeTM by healthcare for searching dental procedures is increasing. Dental professio-
professional sources were significantly fuller in content than nals should be aware of false information on websites and video
videos posted by laypeople. This suggests that videos by lay- sharing sites like YoutubeTM and should always direct their
people serve as more social and experiential than those by patients to the right information.
medical professionals which usually have a more scientific
purpose [18]. Funding
Most of the videos we examined [29,5%, n = 18] consist of The authors have stated that there is no funding with this
personal experience. Patients should be careful when watching research.
other people's experiences; these personal experiences can
sometimes be done under the control of a clinic and may be Disclosure of interest: The authors declare that they have no competing
for advertising purposes, and sometimes really contain subjec- interest.
tive information and good advice. Despite concerns about the
References
[1] Litsas G, Acar A. A review of early displaced [4] Jacoby H. The etiology of maxillary canine [7] Riordain RN, Hodgson T. Content and quality
maxillary canines: etiology, diagnosis and impactions. Am J Orthod 1983;84:125–32. of website information on the treatment of
interceptive treatment. Open Dent J [5] Becker A, editor. The orthodontic treat- oral ulcers. Br Dent J 2014;217:E15.
2011;5:39–47. ment of impacted teeth 2nd ed, Abingdon, [8] Vance K, Howe W, Dellavalle RP. Social
[2] Bishara SE. Impacted maxillary canines: A Oxon, England: Informa Healthcare; 2007p. internet sites as a source of public health
review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1–228. information. Dermatol Clin 2009;27:133–6.
1992;101:159–71. [6] Bedoya MM, Park JH. A review of the diag- [9] Kumar N, Pandey A, Venkatraman A, Garg
[3] Mitchell L, editor. An Introduction to Ortho- nosis and management of impacted N. Are video sharing web sites a useful
dontics 3rd ed, New York: Oxford University maxillary canines. J Am Dent Assoc source of information on hypertension? J
Press; 2007p. 147–56. 2009;140:1485–93. Am Soc Hypertens 2014;8:481–90.
774
tome 17 > n84 > December 2019YouTube video analysis as a source of information for patients on impacted canine
Original article
[10] Nason K, Donnelly A, Duncan HF. YouTube as [15] Lo AS, Esser MJ, Gordon KE. YouTube: a gauge [20] Drozd B, Couvillon E, Suarez A. Medical
a patient-information source for root canal of public perception and awareness surround- YouTube Videos and Methods of Evaluation:
treatment. Int Endod J 2016;49:1194–200. ing epilepsy. Epilepsy Behav 2010;17:541–5. Literature Review. JMIR Med Educ 2018;4:e3.
[11] Hegarty E, Campbell C, Grammatopoulos E, [16] Sherman LE, Hernandez LM, Greenfield PM, [21] Aghasiyev R, Yılmaz BŞ. The Accuracy of
DiBiase AT, Sherriff M, Cobourne MT. You- Dapretto M. What the brain 'Likes': neural corre- Information about Orthodontics Available on
TubeTM as an information resource for orthog- lates of providing feedback on social media. Soc the Internet. Turk J Orthod 2018;31:127–32.
nathic surgery. J Orthod 2017;44:90–6. Cogn Affect Neurosci 2018;13:699–707. [22] ReFaey K, Tripathi S, Bohnen AM, et al. The
[12] Lena Y, Dindaroğlu F. Lingual orthodontic [17] Knösel M, Jung K. Informational value and Reliability of YouTube Videos Describing
treatment: A YouTubeTM video analysis. Angle bias of videos related to orthodontics Stereotactic Radiosurgery: A Call for Action.
Orthod 2018;88:208–14. screened on a video-sharing Web site. Angle World Neurosurg 2019 [Epub ahead of print].
[13] Abukaraky A, Hamdan AA, Ameera MN, Orthod 2011;81:532–9. [23] Gokcen HB, Gumussuyu G. A Quality Analysis
Nasief M, Hassona Y. Quality of YouTube [18] Bezner SK, Hodgman EI, Diesen DL, et al. of Disc Herniation Videos on YouTube. World
TM videos on dental implants. Med Oral Patol Pediatric surgery on YouTubeTM: is the truth Neurosurg 2019 [Epub ahead of print].
Oral Cir Bucal 2018;23:e463–8. out there? Journal of Pediatric Surgery [24] Ferhatoglu MF, Kartal A, Ekici U, Gurkan A.
[14] Desai T, Shariff A, Dhingra V, Minhas D, Eure 2014;49:586–9. Evaluation of the Reliability, Utility, and Qual-
M, Kats M. Is content really king? An objec- [19] Boston MM, Ruwe E, Duggins A, Willging P. ity of the Information in Sleeve Gastrectomy
tive analysis of the public's response to me- Internet use by parents of children under- Videos Shared on Open Access Video
dical videos on YouTube. PLoS One 2013;8 going outpatient otolaryngology. Arch Otolar- Sharing Platform YouTube. Obes Surg 2019;
[e8246917]. yngol Head Neck Surg 2005;131:719–22. 29:1477–84.
775
tome 17 > n84 > December 2019You can also read
