Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions| Reviewers

Login 
  Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Users Online: 38    
     


 
Table of Contents   
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 12  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 245-251
Analysis of quality, usefulness, reliability, visibility, and popularity of videos about dental caries on YouTube: A cross-sectional analysis


1 Department of Community and Preventive Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Brawijaya, Malang, Indonesia
2 Department of Preventive and Public Health Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia
3 Department of Dental Public Health, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia

Date of Submission23-Aug-2021
Date of Decision17-Nov-2021
Date of Acceptance28-Dec-2021
Date of Web Publication08-Apr-2022

Correspondence Address:
Prof. Diah Ayu Maharani
Department of Preventive and Public Health Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta 10430.
Indonesia
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_246_21

Rights and Permissions

   Abstract 

Objectives: YouTube is the most popular social media and is widely used to access dental and oral diseases information. Nonetheless, the quality of online health information remains a problem. This study aimed to analyze the quality, usefulness, reliability, visibility, and popularity of YouTube videos about dental caries as a source of information. Materials and Methods: The study design was a cross-sectional analytical study. Here, 300 videos that were uploaded in September 2019–2020 were screened, and total duration, number of views, number of likes, number dislikes, uploader category (individual users or health professionals), and upload date of the videos were recorded. One hundred videos were analyzed in terms of their quality, usefulness, reliability, visibility, and popularity using the Global Quality Scale, usefulness score, DISCERN, viewing rate, and interaction index, respectively. Results: Videos were 78% uploaded by individual users. Videos uploaded by health professionals showed high scores in quality, usefulness, and reliability. Videos that were greater than 6 min long exhibited both better quality and higher popularity. Video with good-quality showed high visibility and popularity. In addition, videos with better usefulness and reliability showed high visibility; however, their popularity was low. Conclusions: Information about dental caries on YouTube is limited in quality. YouTube videos have a potentially important role in oral health education.


Keywords: Dental caries, videos, YouTube


How to cite this article:
Rachmawati YL, Putri DW, Hariyani N, Bahar A, Maharani DA. Analysis of quality, usefulness, reliability, visibility, and popularity of videos about dental caries on YouTube: A cross-sectional analysis. J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent 2022;12:245-51

How to cite this URL:
Rachmawati YL, Putri DW, Hariyani N, Bahar A, Maharani DA. Analysis of quality, usefulness, reliability, visibility, and popularity of videos about dental caries on YouTube: A cross-sectional analysis. J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent [serial online] 2022 [cited 2022 May 23];12:245-51. Available from: https://www.jispcd.org/text.asp?2022/12/2/245/342722



   Introduction Top


The Internet is been widely used by most of the world’s population.[1] As of January 2020, there were 4.54 billion global Internet users and 175.4 million Internet users are from Indonesia.[2] In addition, social media services are used nearly daily by many people connected to the Internet.[3] Currently, there are 160 million social media users in Indonesia.[2] Compared to other social media services, online video sharing applications, such as Google, Facebook, and YouTube are the most frequently used information source, especially health information.[4],[5] Registered YouTube users can easily share any video without being validated,[6] and 60% of Internet users have searched for health information on YouTube.[7] This makes YouTube video publications vulnerable due to potentially invalid information, which can affect health-related decisions.[6] As many as 75% of patients address health problems based on the results of health information obtained from online media.[5]

YouTube is widely used to access information related to dental and oral diseases. Dental caries are health problems that affect nearly all age groups.[8] In 2018 the average decay missing filling teeth index of permanent teeth at the age of 12 years and over in Indonesia is 7.1, and this includes very high risk of dental caries.[9] If not treated immediately, dental caries will develop and eventually cause infection and pain. In Indonesia, the prevalence of permanent dental caries is 61% in children age 12-year-old, which is higher than in other countries in Southeast Asia.[10] Poor oral conditions can impact the functional, emotional, and social development of children and their families.[11] In addition, a lack of individual knowledge can increase the risk of dental caries.[12] Early health education plays an important role in the prevention of dental caries, and educational media must be in line with current trends in society. The use of technology can make it easier to obtain health information because technology is very prevalent in modern society.[12]

There have been many discussion about the quality of YouTube videos about oral health in other countries.[13],[14] Although some online health information is of good quality, poor-quality information remains a problem.[15] In Indonesia, the quality of YouTube videos about oral health information has not been investigated thoroughly. Therefore, to provide good oral health information via online video sites, particularly information about dental caries, this study investigates the quality, usefulness, reliability, visibility, and popularity of Indonesian YouTube videos about dental caries as a source of health information.


   Materials and Methods Top


The reporting of this study is in accordance with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement.[16],[17] This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Indonesia, No. 18/Ethical Approval/FKGUI/VIII/2020 with Protocol No. 090190720. YouTube videos about dental caries were acquired using a selection of video filters in the past year. Video searching used the keyword “dental caries,” which were uploaded to YouTube in the last 1 year (September 2019–2020). After searching with the given keyword, as many as 300 videos were screened, and then videos were selected with inclusion criteria using all Indonesian language YouTube videos containing information about dental caries. The exclusion criteria included videos with no sound, videos that discuss dental caries but dominantly discuss other diseases, duplicate videos, advertisements (e.g., oral health promotions and dental clinics), and video conferences or lectures that target a specialized audience.[14]

A total of 100 videos were assessed for complete analysis based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the total duration, number of views, likes, dislikes, uploaders, and date of upload information were recorded. In addition, the videos were categorized based on the upload source, that is, independent users or health professionals.[14],[18] The information in the YouTube videos was assessed using four analysis techniques, which are Global Quality Scale (GQS),[13] Usefulness,[14] reliability based on five questions adapted from the DISCERN questionnaire,[13] and viewer interaction (e.g., number of views, likes, dislikes, and date of upload).

Video quality was investigated using the GQS based on the information of the video as a whole and how useful the video was for patients according to the following criteria: 1 = very poor quality (poor flow, lack of information, nothing useful for patients); 2 = generally poor quality (low level of flow, some information is listed, but there are many important topics, very limited use to patients); 3 = moderate quality (flow is less than ideal, some important information is discussed adequately, other pieces of information are discussed poorly, somewhat useful to patients); 4 = good quality (generally good flow, most of the relevant information is listed, some topics are not addressed, useful to patients); 5 = excellent quality (excellent flow, very useful for patients).[13] Usefulness was assessed whether the information in the videos included definitions, indications, contraindications, advantages, involved procedures, complications, costs, and prognosis. Each item was given one point if the information was mentioned in the video. The point range was 0 to 8, with 0 to 2 points representing poor quality, 3 to 5 points representing moderate quality, 6 to 8 points representing excelling quality.[14]

Reliability was investigated based on five questions adapted from the DISCERN questionnaire to assess the completeness of the information and the reliability of the information source. The questionnaire comprises of five questions.[1] Are the objectives clear and achieved?[2] Are the information sources reliable?[3] Is the presented information balanced and unbiased?[4] Are additional information sources listed for patient reference?[5] Are areas of uncertainty mentioned? Each question was rated as 1 if it was mentioned in the video, with the total score ranging from 0 to 5.[13] Further, viewer interaction was investigated in terms of video features, for example, the number of views, number of likes, number of dislikes, and the upload date, which were calculated to generate a viewing rate to assess visibility and interaction index to assess popularity. The viewing rate and interaction index are expressed as follows:[6],[14] Viewing rate (visibility) =

[INLINE 1]; Interaction index (popularity) =

[INLINE 2]

A pilot study was conducted to calibrate and analyze the reliability of the observer. Two observers viewed the same videos independently. The reliability measurement was conducted by observing (with both inter- and intra-observer) 20 videos repeatedly at different times. An analysis was then performed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) with an expected value of >0.80 that indicated good agreement. Statistical analysis was performed using a licensed SPSS Statistical Software IBM SPSS version 28.0 (IBM, Armonk, New York). Here, the inter-observer agreement was calculated using the ICC, and then the variables were analyzed using the Mann–Whitney test for the nonparametric data. The statistical significance was set to P < 0.05 in this statistical analysis.


   Results Top


In total 100 videos were analyzed. The inter- and intraobserver ICC values for all measurement categories were >0.8, which indicates good agreement. [Table 1] and [Table 2] show the characteristics of the sample and the overall performance of the evaluated videos. Most of the assessed videos were produced by independent users (78%; n = 78). The average video duration was 6 min 27 s (ranging from 96 s to 58 min 40 s). The average number of video views was 65,348 (ranging from 10 to 1,114,735). The number of views, likes, dislikes, and duration as upload are related to the interaction index and viewing rate. From the overall analysis, the average usefulness score and GQS of the videos were poor.
Table 1: Sample characteristics

Click here to view
Table 2: Videos analysis according to different variables

Click here to view


[Table 3] shows that there were significant differences relative to the number of views, viewing rate, likes, interaction index, usefulness score, GQS, and DISCERN in score each uploader category. The number of views of videos with the same keywords uploaded by health professionals is greater than that of videos uploaded by individual users, with a median of 7.619 (P = 0.037). This significantly affects the viewing rate of videos uploaded by health professionals who also have higher values (P = 0.013). The number of likes on videos uploaded by health professionals is also greater than that for video uploaded by individual users, with median of 135 (P = 0.001). However, the interaction index and dislikes values do not show statistically significant differences between the two uploader categories. In the GQS, usefulness score, and DISCERN score assessments, a significant difference was observed in terms of the corresponding values for videos uploaded by health professionals (P = 0.001).
Table 3: Videos classification according to the upload source

Click here to view


Relative to the video duration analysis, [Table 4] shows that differences in the interaction index and GQS were observed between the two duration categories, that is, less or greater than 6 min. Videos greater than 6 min show a higher interaction index, with a median of 1.93 (P = 0.001), and the GQS value also shows that durations greater than 6 min have a higher video quality rating, with a median of 2 (P = 0.027). In terms of the GQS, usefulness score, and DISCERN score analyses, [Table 5][Table 6][Table 7] show that there were no significant differences between the number of views, viewing rate, number of likes, and interaction index for GCS, usefulness, and DISCERN score category.
Table 4: Comparison of videos according to duration (min)

Click here to view
Table 5: Comparison of videos according to global quality score (GQS)

Click here to view
Table 6: Comparison of videos according to usefulness score

Click here to view
Table 7: Comparison of videos according to DISCERN score

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


Social media services represent an important form of interaction between Internet users, for example, sharing information, sharing opinions, and creating content. YouTube is a popular and important social media service, which is evident by the many interactions that occur between users through view, like, and dislike activities on YouTube. This characteristic is an important measure that can indicate the visibility and popularity of a YouTube video or channel. In this study, most of videos were uploaded by independent users. In previous studies, the evaluation results also indicated that most assessed videos were produced by independent users.[13] These results show that many YouTube users seek information about dental caries to learn more or to share information with others.

Currently, it is easy to acquire information from social media services. Most patients use the Internet to search for health information, including dental caries. Dental caries can be experienced by people of all ages. Dental caries are a chronic disease that will impact a person’s quality of life if not treated immediately.[19],[20] YouTube video content can be a useful source of information for the user; however such video content should not be the primary source of health-related information.

In this study, in the different categories of uploader sources, the number of views was greater than the number of likes. A high number of views indicates that the majority of YouTube users engage as passive users, that is, searching for information without engaging in any online community interactions.[21] Although most videos are uploaded by independent users, the results of this study show that the values for the number of views, viewing rates, likes, and interaction index of videos uploaded by health professionals are greater higher than those independent users. The visibility and popularity of videos from health professionals are higher than those of independent users, which shows that YouTube users are more interested in videos from reliable sources.

The GQS, usefulness score, and DISCERN score of videos uploaded by health professionals were high in scores. This indicates that the video quality, usefulness, and reliability uploaded by health professionals were better than that of independent users. However, incompleteness was observed because some videos did not mention the source of presented information and did not provide references to viewers to seek additional information about dental caries. Previous studies found that videos uploaded by individual users have a greater chance of being misleading than videos uploaded by authorities/experts.[22],[23]

In our video duration analysis, videos that had a duration of up to 6 min had higher visibility; however, their popularity was less than that of videos with a duration of greater than 6 min. This indicates that YouTube users are more interested in watching videos that are not too long in duration. The results of a previous study that observed students learning from video content showed that video durations of no greater than 6 min tended to be watched until to completion.[24] In contrast, videos with a duration of greater than 6 min had a higher GQS score than videos that were 6 min long or less. This means that longer videos have better quality; thus, such videos are more popular than shorter videos. However, difference in usefulness score between longer or shorter durations was apparent. This could be explained by the fact that most YouTube videos about dental caries do not contain complete information. The information described in most videos is about treatment procedures and prognosis. Videos with good quality have higher visibility and popularity. Although videos with better usefulness and reliability have higher visibility, they are lower in terms of popularity, which indicates that YouTube users select videos to watch based on interest regardless of, usefulness, and reliability.[25]

This study however may have several limitations. Comparison with unequal videos between health professionals and individual users may lead to a biased result. Further studies shall consider equal to near equal samples for comparisons. Potentially measurement bias might occur due to the dynamics of statistics in YouTube, for example, views, likes, and dislikes, which constantly changing.[14] The results will also depend on the time of the search and keywords used. When using different keywords, the results will differ. In addition, only one keyword was used; therefore, further research is required to examine additional searches with a greater number of keywords. However, some studies have shown good results despite using only a single keyword.[14],[26] Although the study topic is interesting, however there are certain methodological issues as YouTube studies information reliability should be interpreted with caution and further rigorous studies should be conducted.[5] Previous reviews described few similarities between YouTube healthcare information study methods.[5],[27] The inconsistency of methods being used might occur due to possible variables that may contribute to popularity of YouTube videos.[27] Nonetheless the importance of this study shall be highlighted because YouTube may be used as a very effective information resource. Previous study analyzed YouTube videos as a source for parents’ education on early childhood caries.[26] In addition, the current study has recent data, unique content, and employed usefulness score to analyze the YouTube videos regarding dental caries. Earlier study emphasized on detection, effects, etiology, and prevention of early childhood caries,[26] whereas the current one focused on definitions, indications, contraindications, advantages, involved procedures, complications, costs, and prognosis of dental caries in all age groups. YouTube, as the most popular video-sharing site in the world, has high potential as a platform for health promotion and education.[28] Therefore, research on YouTube is encouraged to optimize it’s use and impact in its role to improve health.


   Conclusion Top


YouTube videos uploaded by health professionals have better quality, usability, reliability, visibility, and popularity than videos uploaded by individual users. However, most YouTube videos about dental caries have been uploaded by individual users, which can be problematic if inaccurate dental health information is provided in the video content. Videos that are longer than 6 min have a higher interaction index and higher video quality.

Acknowledgement

The authors are grateful for the World Class University Project Indonesia, especially to Universitas Indonesia, Universitas Brawijaya, and Universitas Airlangga.

Financial support and sponsorship

This study was supported by Program Penelitian Kolaborasi Indonesia (PPKI) Grant 2021.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declared no conflict of interest.

Authors contributions

Conceptualization: A.B. and D.A.M.; data curation: D.W.P. and D.A.M.; formal analysis: D.W.P., Y.L.R. and D.A.M.; investigation: A.B., D.W.P., Y.L.R., N.H. and D.A.M.; methodology: A.B. and D.A.M.; writing—original draft: D.W.P., A.B., and Y.L.R.; writing—review and editing: Y.L.R., N.H. and D.A.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Ethical policy and institutional review board statement

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Indonesia, No. 18/Ethical Approval/FKGUI/VIII/2020 with Protocol No. 090190720.

Patient declaration of consent

Not applicable.

Data availability statement

The raw data are available from the authors to any author who wishes to collaborate with us.

 
   References Top

1.
Pal Singh Balhara Y, Doric A, Stevanovic D, Knez R, Singh S, Roy Chowdhury MR, et al. Correlates of problematic internet use among college and university students in eight countries: An international cross-sectional study. Asian J Psychiatr 2019;45:113-20.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Kemp S Digital 2020: Global Digital Yearbook—Datareportal–Global Digital Insights. We are Soc Hootsuite. 2020. Available from: https://datareportal.com/reports/digital- 2020-global-digital-overview [Last accessed on May 10, 2021].  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Drahošová M, Balco P The analysis of advantages and disadvantages of use of social media in European Union. Procedia Comput Sci 2017;109:1005-9.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Balakrishnan J, Griffiths MD Social media addiction: What is the role of content in YouTube? J Behav Addict 2017;6:364-77.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Madathil KC, Rivera-Rodriguez AJ, Greenstein JS, Gramopadhye AK Healthcare information on YouTube: A systematic review. Health Informatics J 2015;21:173-94.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Hassona Y, Taimeh D, Marahleh A, Scully C YouTube as a source of information on mouth (oral) cancer. Oral Dis 2016;22:202-8.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Kim H, Nakamura C, Zeng-Treitler Q Assessment of pictographs developed through a participatory design process using an online survey tool. J Med Internet Res 2009;11:e5.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Fontana M, Gonzalez-Cabezas C Evidence-based dentistry caries risk assessment and disease management. Dent Clin North Am 2019;63:119-28.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Data and Information Centre, Ministry of Health of the Republic of Indonesia. National Dental Health. 2019. Available from: https://pusdatin.kemkes.go.id [Last accessed on April 30, 2021].  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Maharani DA, Zhang S, Gao SS, Chu CH, Rahardjo A Dental caries and the erosive tooth wear status of 12-year-old children in Jakarta. Indonesia. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019;16:2994.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Jokovic A, Locker D, Tompson B, Guyatt G Questionnaire for measuring oral health-related quality of life in eight- to ten-year-old children. Pediatr Dent 2004;26:512-8.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Campos LFXA, Cavalcante JP, Machado DP, Marçal E, Silva PGB, Rolim JPML Development and evaluation of a mobile oral health application for preschoolers. Telemed J E Health 2019;25:492-8.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Kovalski LNS, Cardoso FB, D’Avila OP, Corrêa APB, Martins MAT, Martins MD, et al. Is the YouTube™: An useful source of information on oral leukoplakia? Oral Dis 2019;25:1897-905.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Gaş S, Zincir ÖÖ, Bozkurt AP Are YouTube videos useful for patients interested in botulinum toxin for bruxism? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019;77:1776-83.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Chena X, Hayb JL, Watersc EA, Kiviniemia MT, Schofieldb E, Lib Y Health literacy and use and trust in health information. Physiol Behav 2018;176:139-48.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Huang J, Zhang S, Xiao Q, Cao Y, Li B YouTube™ as a source of information for Candida auris infection: a systematic review BMC Public Health 2020;20:832.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Sorensen JA, Pusz MD, Brietzke SE YouTube as an information source for pediatric adenotonsillectomy and ear tube surgery. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2014;78;65-70.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Fortuna G, Schiavo JH, Aria M, Mignogna MD, Klasser GD The usefulness of YouTube™ videos as a source of information on burning mouth syndrome. J Oral Rehabil 2019;46:657-65.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Young DA, Nový BB, Zeller GG, Hale R, Hart TC, Truelove EL; American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs; American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs. The American Dental Association Caries Classification System for clinical practice: A report of the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs. J Am Dent Assoc 2015;146:79-86.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Suneja ES, Suneja B, Tandon B, Philip NI An overview of caries risk assessment: Rationale. risk indicators: Risk assessment methods and risk-based caries management protocols. Indian J Dent Sci 2017;11:10-3.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Shahbaznezhad H, Dolan R, Rashidirad M The role of social media content format and platform in users’ engagement behavior. J Interact Mark 2021;53:47-65.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Bora K, Das D, Barman B, Borah P Are internet videos useful sources of information during global public health emergencies? A case study of YouTube videos during the 2015-16 zika virus pandemic. Pathog Glob Health 2018;112:320-8.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Kocyigit BF, Akaltun MS, Sahin AR YouTube as a source of information on Covid-19 and rheumatic disease link. Clin Rheumatol 2020;39:2049-54.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Brame CJ Effective educational videos: Principles and guidelines for maximizing student learning from video content. CBE Life Sci Educ 2016;15:1-.6.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Ventola CL Social media and health care professionals: Benefits, risks, and best practices. P T 2014;39:491-500.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
ElKarmi R, Hassona Y, Taimeh D, Scully C YouTube as a source for parents’ education on early childhood caries. Int J Paediatr Dent 2017;27:437-43.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Drozd B, Couvillon E, Suarez A Medical YouTube videos and methods of evaluation: Literature review. Jmir Med Educ 2018;4:e3.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Ramadhani A, Zettira Z, Rachmawati YL, Hariyani N, Maharani DA Quality and reliability of halitosis videos on YouTube as a source of information. Dent J 2021;9:120.  Back to cited text no. 28
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 6], [Table 7]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
 
  Search
 
  
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Article in PDF (219 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed434    
    Printed4    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded52    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal