| Title |
YouTube videos as a source of medical information during the Ebola hemorrhagic fever epidemic
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
SpringerPlus, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40064-015-1251-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sajan Jiv Singh Nagpal, Ahmadreza Karimianpour, Dhruvika Mukhija, Diwakar Mohan, Andrei Brateanu |
| Abstract |
The content and quality of medical information available on video sharing websites such as YouTube is not known. We analyzed the source and quality of medical information about Ebola hemorrhagic fever (EHF) disseminated on YouTube and the video characteristics that influence viewer behavior. An inquiry for the search term 'Ebola' was made on YouTube. The first 100 results were arranged in decreasing order of "relevance" using the default YouTube algorithm. Videos 1-50 and 51-100 were allocated to a high relevance (HR), and a low relevance (LR) video group, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess the predictors of a video being included in the HR vs. LR groups. Fourteen videos were excluded because they were parodies, songs or stand-up comedies (n = 11), not in English (n = 2) or a remaining part of a previous video (n = 1). Two scales, the video information and quality and index and the medical information and content index (MICI) assessed the overall quality, and the medical content of the videos, respectively. There were no videos from hospitals or academic medical centers. Videos in the HR group had a higher median number of views (186,705 vs. 43,796, p < 0.001), more 'likes' (1119 vs. 224, p < 0.001), channel subscriptions (208 vs. 32, p < 0.001), and 'shares' (519 vs. 98, p < 0.001). Multivariable logistic regression showed that only the 'clinical symptoms' component of the MICI scale was associated with a higher likelihood of a video being included in the HR vs. LR group.(OR 1.86, 95 % CI 1.06-3.28, p = 0.03). YouTube videos presenting clinical symptoms of infectious diseases during epidemics are more likely to be included in the HR group and influence viewers behavior. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 | 2 | 33% |
| Canada | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 90 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 16 | 17% |
| Researcher | 15 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 14% |
| Unknown | 26 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 29 | 32% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 16 | 17% |
| Unknown | 29 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 01 September 2015.
All research outputs
#6,960,384
of 22,826,360 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#434
of 1,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,592
of 268,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#31
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,826,360 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,851 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 268,158 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.