Abstract
Background
Good oral hygiene is crucial for preventing dental caries and periodontal diseases. However, proper and regular application of oral hygiene practices requires adequate knowledge. In recent years, the internet has become one of the most popular places to find health-related information, necessitating studies that analyze the quality of the content available online. The purpose of the present study was to analyze the content quality and reliability of YouTube™ videos on the topic of adult oral hygiene practices and to guide oral health care professionals who use this platform for patient education.
Methods
A YouTube™ search was performed of the most frequent search term, ‘dental hygiene’. A total of 150 videos were screened, and 51 were included in the final study. The characteristics, sources, and content of the videos were analyzed using the Global Quality Score (GQS) and DISCERN reliability indices. The IBM SPSS 25 program was used for statistical analyses.
Results
Most of the included videos were uploaded by oral health care professionals (63%). GQS revealed only 17.6% of the videos were excellent quality whereas 23.5% of them were poor quality. In the content analysis, 62.7% of the videos were deemed moderately useful. Video duration, total content score, and interaction indices were all significantly higher in the useful and very useful groups compared to the slightly useful group (p = 0.020, p < 0.001, p = 0.040). GQS had a positive, low-medium statistically significant correlation with both video duration and total content scores (r = 0.235, r = 0.517; p < 0.05). DISCERN score also had a positive, low-medium statistically significant correlation with total content score (r = 0.500; p < 0.05).
Conclusion
The study concluded that most YouTube™ videos on oral hygiene practices for adults are moderately useful. When using YouTube™ for patient education, oral health care professionals and organizations should be aware of low-quality videos and seek out accurate, useful videos. There is also a need for quality videos with expanded oral health content.
Keywords: Dental hygiene, Oral health, Online systems
Introduction
Oral health is defined by the World Health Organization as the state in which individuals perform essential functions such as chewing and speaking without pain, discomfort, and embarrassment (World Health Organization, 2023). According to the Global Oral Health Status Report, untreated dental caries and severe periodontal diseases are among the leading causes of oral diseases, which are reported to affect approximately half of the global population (Jain et al., 2023). Oral health can be mostly maintained with proper oral hygiene practices and regular professional prophylaxis (). When oral hygiene is neglected, dental biofilm matures to its maximum extent within a 4-day period, initiating the clinical signs of gingival inflammation ().
Oral health care professionals are primarily responsible for giving patients oral health-related information and oral hygiene instructions, which should be tailored to the needs of each individual. However, patients now tend to obtain their health-information from the internet, especially those who have difficulty accessing healthcare quickly (Medlock et al., 2015; Hesse et al., 2005). One survey found that 48.6% of adults in the US prefer to get first-stage health information online instead of visiting a physician (Hesse et al., 2005). Although online information is both free and easy to access, the quality of online sources is debatable (Chu et al., 2017). Thus, the widespread availability of uncontrolled information on digital platforms poses a potential risk to public health.
YouTube™ is a US-based social media platform that was launched in 2005 and has become a popular information database for a variety of subjects (). The public has free access to this platform, increasing the distribution of knowledge (). However, this access can also be harmful for patients because of possible misleading information disseminated from unreliable sources (Duman, 2020). Numerous YouTube™ videos are available about different medical conditions (de Oliveira Júnior et al., 2023; Desai et al., 2013). A review of related literature on dentistry revealed several publications that evaluate the quality of online videos on pediatric oral care (; Duman, 2020; ), peri-implantitis (), oral hygiene practices during the COVID-19 pandemic (), orthodontic treatment (), implants (Abukaraky et al., 2018), denture care (Yagci, 2023) and tooth extractions. However, the present study is the first to evaluate the quality of YouTube™ videos on adult oral hygiene practices. Unreliable and misleading information on this topic may harm patients, as improper brushing and interdental cleaning techniques, as well as the use of inaccurate devices, are associated with gum recession and a lack of professional dental care. This study hypothesized that the quality and content of YouTube™ videos about oral hygiene practices in adults would be generally insufficient and that the content of videos uploaded by professionals would be better than those uploaded by laypeople.
Materials and Methods
The present cross-sectional study did not require ethical approval since it contained open-access data. The Google Trends website (https://trends.google.com), which is an internet search engine designed to find the frequency of searches for particular terms over a given time frame, was used to obtain the most preferred search term within the ‘last 5 years worldwide’. Possible keywords were searched, and ‘dental hygiene’ was identified as the most frequent search term related to oral hygiene practices (Fig. 1).
Figure 1. Distribution of the search terms in Google Trends.
Open in a new tab
On September 18, 2023, a YouTube™ search was performed using the key word ‘dental hygiene’ without applying any filters. An experienced periodontist performed the search and assessed the videos between September 18 and 25. A total of 150 videos were screened for eligibility, and uniform resource locators (URLs) were recorded. The study included videos that provided oral health instructions in English, and excluded the following: (1) irrelevant videos; (2) commercials; (3) duplicates; (4) dental hygiene instructions for children, orthodontic patients, or denture care.
Descriptive data for the remaining videos was recorded, including the upload source, video duration, and number of views, likes, and comments. Video sources were categorized into the following: (1) oral health care professionals (dental hygienists, dentists, and dental specialists); (2) universities, clinics, and professional organizations; (3) online information websites (online dental platforms, TV channels); (4) laypeople. The interaction index percentage was calculated using the method described by Duman (2020): (number of likes – dislikes/number of views) × 100. A content analysis (), DISCERN (Charnock et al., 1999; ), and Global Quality Scores (GQS) (Bernard et al., 2007) were applied to the final 51 videos.
The 14 parameters shown in Fig. 2 and outlined by guided the content analysis of the included videos. The questions in the analysis mainly addressed oral hygiene instructions and items related to healthy nutritional habits. Each criteria was scored as 0 (no) or 1 (yes), with a maximum possible score of 14 points. Video content was classified according to the total score for each video: 0 points = not useful; 1–3 points = slightly useful; 4–7 points = moderately useful; 8–11 points = useful; and 12–14 points = very useful.
Figure 2. Content quality scores: 0 = not useful; 1–3 = slightly useful; 4–7 = moderately useful; 8–11 = useful; 12–14 = very useful.
Open in a new tab
The DISCERN scale was used to score the reliability of health-related information. In addition to evaluating video content, this scale questions the source and objectivity of information and whether there is bias or conflict of interest. It includes five questions that can be either scored 0 (no) or 1 (yes) for a maximum of five points, with higher scores indicating more reliable content (Fig. 3).
Figure 3. DISCERN and Global Quality Score (GQS) parameters.
Open in a new tab
GQS, which is a 5-point scale system, was used to evaluate video quality. This scoring system evaluates the researcher’s general opinion, with video content quality ranging from poor (1) to excellent (5; Fig. 3).
Statistical analysis
Descriptive statistics are given as the number, percentage, mean, standard deviation, minimum, maximum, and median. Analyses were carried out in the IBM SPSS 25 program. The distribution of normality was checked using the Shapiro-Wilk test. The Kruskal Wallis test was used to compare the means of three or more groups without a normal distribution. A post-hoc Bonferroni test was applied to reveal the group or groups that made the difference. Fisher’s Exact test was applied in cases where the sample size assumption (expected value > 5) was not met in testing the relationship between categorical variables. Associations between an ordered categorical variable and continuous variables were checked with Kendall’s Tau correlation. A p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results
Descriptive variables
The first 150 videos in the search results that were related to the topic of adult oral hygiene were screened, and 51 of them were included in the present study (34%). Most of the included videos (62.7%) were uploaded by oral health care professionals, followed by universities, clinics, and professional organizations (25.5%), laypeople (7.8%), and online information websites (3.9%). Table 1 displays the descriptive characteristics of these videos, including duration, likes, views, comments, and interaction index scores. The included videos had an average overall content score of 6.86. The mean GQS and DISCERN scores were 3.53 and 2.96, respectively.
Table 1. Descriptive characteristics of the included videos.
| Minimum | Maximum | Mean | SD | Median | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Duration | 0.92 | 29.93 | 8.20 | 6.80 | 6.58 |
| Views | 56.00 | 33,000,000.00 | 1,142,723.90 | 4,690,614.19 | 116,000.00 |
| Likes | 0.00 | 92,000.00 | 9,125.22 | 17,950.39 | 1,700.00 |
| Comments | 0.00 | 5,800.00 | 438.38 | 949.80 | 114.00 |
| Total content score | 3.00 | 13.00 | 6.86 | 2.39 | 7.00 |
| DISCERN | 0.00 | 5.00 | 2.96 | 1.28 | 3.00 |
| GQS | 2.00 | 5.00 | 3.53 | 1.05 | 4.00 |
| Interaction index | 0.00 | 514.29 | 12.42 | 71.84 | 1.64 |
Open in a new tab
Note:
GQS, Global quality scale; SD, Standard deviation.
GQS, content analysis, and DISCERN scores
Table 2 reveals the distribution of the videos in each of the evaluated indices. GQS revealed 41.2% of the videos (n = 21) were good quality, whereas 23.5% of them (n = 12) were generally poor quality. In the content analysis, 62.7% and 25.5% of the videos (n = 32, n = 13) were found to be moderately useful and useful, respectively. The DISCERN scores were distributed as follows: 29.4% (n = 15) received a score of 3, 25.5% (n = 13) scored a 4, and 23.5% (n = 12) scored a 2.
Table 2. Distribution of the videos according to the evaluated indices.
| n | % | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| GQS | Poor | 0 | 0.0 |
| Generally poor | 12 | 23.5 | |
| Moderate | 9 | 17.6 | |
| Good | 21 | 41.2 | |
| Excellent | 9 | 17.6 | |
| DISCERN score | 0 | 2 | 3.9 |
| 1 | 3 | 5.9 | |
| 2 | 12 | 23.5 | |
| 3 | 15 | 29.4 | |
| 4 | 13 | 25.5 | |
| 5 | 6 | 11.8 | |
| Total content score | Slightly useful | 4 | 7.8 |
| Moderately useful | 32 | 62.7 | |
| Useful | 13 | 25.5 | |
| Very useful | 2 | 3.9 | |
Open in a new tab
Note:
GQS, Global quality scale.
Comparison of GQS groups revealed statistically significant differences between the number of comments and total content scores (p = 0.044, p < 0.001; Table 3). According to the post hoc test results performed for double comparisons, there were more comments on videos of moderate quality than on videos of generally poor quality (p = 0.027). For total content scores, significant differences were detected between generally poor-quality videos and those of good quality and excellent quality (p = 0.005 and p = 0.001). Total content scores of good and excellent-quality videos were higher than those of generally poor-quality videos.
Table 3. Comparison of the video characteristics according to the GQS scores.
| Median (minimum–maximum) | Mean ± S.D. | Test statistics | p | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Duration | Generally poor quality | 2.79 (0.92–11.23) | 5.01 ± 4.03 | 5.423 | 0.143 |
| Moderate quality | 8.32 (1.93–11.52) | 6.81 ± 4.54 | |||
| Good quality | 8.42 (1.2–29.17) | 9.86 ± 7.74 | |||
| Excellent quality | 9.28 (3.6–29.93) | 9.97 ± 8.26 | |||
| Views | Generally poor quality | 67,500 (56–539,000) | 136,179.67 ± 182,667.95 | 3.210 | 0.360 |
| Moderate quality | 306,000 (3,500–5,900,000) | 1,330,055.56 ± 2,170,135.4 | |||
| Good quality | 145,000 (186–4,154,358) | 510,338.62 ± 944,091.5 | |||
| Excellent quality | 67,000 (7,300–33,000,000) | 3,773,016.89 ± 10,960,648 | |||
| Likes | Generally poor quality | 525 (0–17,000) | 3,176.92 ± 5,617.08 | 7.445 | 0.059 |
| Moderate quality | 6,500 (671–92,000) | 20,919 ± 30,842.81 | |||
| Good quality | 1,900 (3–68,000) | 10,047.29 ± 17,364.75 | |||
| Excellent quality | 1,700 (38–9,800) | 3,111 ± 3,588.34 | |||
| Comments | Generally poor quality | 39.5 (0–605) | 113.42 ± 183.6 | 8.113 | 0.044 |
| Moderate quality | 347 (93–3,029) | 878.86 ± 1,050.11 | |||
| Good quality | 135 (0–5,800) | 574.25 ± 1,283.06 | |||
| Excellent quality | 124 (4–950) | 227.11 ± 303.61 | |||
| Total content score | Generally poor quality | 5 (3–7) | 4.75 ± 1.36 | 17.743 | <0.001 |
| Moderate quality | 6 (5–10) | 6.44 ± 1.59 | |||
| Good quality | 7 (5–11) | 7.29 ± 1.74 | |||
| Excellent quality | 10 (3–13) | 9.11 ± 3.18 | |||
| Interaction index | Generally poor quality | 1.22 (0–4.36) | 1.68 ± 1.63 | 1.941 | 0.585 |
| Moderate quality | 2.12 (0.8–514.29) | 58.74 ± 170.83 | |||
| Good quality | 1.64 (0.22–34.68) | 3.41 ± 7.26 | |||
| Excellent quality | 1.39 (0.03–3.33) | 1.43 ± 1.15 |
Open in a new tab
Note:
Kruskal Wallis test, p < 0.05. Bold values indicate statistical significance.
In the total content score categories, significant differences were found between video duration and interaction index scores (p = 0.02, p = 0.04; Table 4). According to the post hoc tests performed for video duration, significant differences were detected between the useful group and the moderately useful and slightly useful groups (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001). Videos with a useful score had longer durations than videos with moderately or slightly useful scores. The interaction index scores of useful videos were higher than those of the slightly useful group (p = 0.034).
Table 4. Comparison of the video characteristics according to the total content score.
| Median (minimum–maximum) | Mean ± S.D. | Test statistics | p | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Duration | Slightly useful | 3.41 (0.92–4.88) | 3.15 ± 2.02 | 7.786 | 0.020 |
| Moderately useful | 5.8 (1.2–16.18) | 6.8 ± 4.57 | |||
| Useful & very useful | 9.93 (3.6–29.93) | 12.53 ± 9.28 | |||
| Views | Slightly useful | 14,050 (56–33,000,000) | 8,257,039 ± 16,495,312.04 | 1.531 | 0.465 |
| Moderately useful | 142,500 (186–5,900,000) | 564,597.81 ± 1,241,975.76 | |||
| Useful & very useful | 67,000 (975–4,154,358) | 478,908.87 ± 1,076,717.04 | |||
| Likes | Slightly useful | 26.5 (0–9,800) | 2,463.25 ± 4,891.18 | 3.351 | 0.187 |
| Moderately useful | 1,800 (3–92,000) | 9,138.03 ± 18,440.68 | |||
| Useful & very useful | 1,700 (27–68,000) | 10,874.4 ± 19,408.77 | |||
| Comments | Slightly useful | 30 (0–950) | 252.5 ± 465.7 | 1.261 | 0.532 |
| Moderately useful | 104 (0–3,029) | 363.07 ± 630.71 | |||
| Useful & very useful | 242 (4–5,800) | 633.53 ± 1,457.41 | |||
| Interaction index | Slightly useful | 0.07 (0–1.91) | 0.51 ± 0.93 | 6.450 | 0.040 |
| Moderately useful | 1.63 (0.1–514.29) | 17.82 ± 90.6 | |||
| Useful & very useful | 2.13 (0.29–34.68) | 4.08 ± 8.51 |
Open in a new tab
Note:
Kruskal Wallis test, p < 0.05. Bold values indicate statistical significance.
Significant differences were detected in the comparison of DISCERN score groups and total content scores (p = 0.001; Table 5). The post hoc tests determined that videos with a DISCERN score of 5 had significantly higher total content scores than those with scores of 0, 1, or 2 (p = 0.025).
Table 5. Comparison of the video characteristics according to the DISCERN score.
| Median (minimum–maximum) | Mean ± S.D. | Test statistics | p | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Duration | 0 and 1 | 11.23 (1.97–29.17) | 12.69 ± 10.74 | 8.578 | 0.073 |
| 2 | 4.3 (0.92–11.52) | 5.56 ± 4.02 | |||
| 3 | 6.89 (1.93–13.32) | 7.01 ± 4.58 | |||
| 4 | 6.48 (1.2–15.5) | 6.76 ± 3.82 | |||
| 5 | 14.13 (3.6–29.93) | 16.55 ± 10.51 | |||
| Views | 0 and 1 | 39,000 (3,400–33,000,000) | 6,893,880 ± 14,605,943.6 | 2.593 | 0.628 |
| 2 | 98,000 (56–879,000) | 194,800.53 ± 248,883.44 | |||
| 3 | 179,500 (975–5,900,000) | 1.299,458.08 ± 2,131,023.62 | |||
| 4 | 199,000 (528–1,558,000) | 366,732.92 ± 431,385.93 | |||
| 5 | 54,000 (186–239,000) | 87,747.67 ± 96,343.56 | |||
| Likes | 0 and 1 | 1,700 (32–18,000) | 5,913.6 ± 7,875.26 | 5.576 | 0.233 |
| 2 | 671 (0–17,000) | 3,690.8 ± 5,758.6 | |||
| 3 | 5,100 (27–92,000) | 20,721.33 ± 31,422.03 | |||
| 4 | 3,900 (3–43,000) | 9,266.77 ± 13,157.51 | |||
| 5 | 402 (10–6,700) | 1,888.67 ± 2,741.73 | |||
| Comments | 0 and 1 | 67 (0–951) | 394 ± 508.73 | 5.709 | 0.222 |
| 2 | 48 (0–668) | 156.43 ± 223.35 | |||
| 3 | 300 (7–5,800) | 1,159.4 ± 1,881.47 | |||
| 4 | 210 (0–1,214) | 337.77 ± 366.27 | |||
| 5 | 22.5 (0–606) | 149.5 ± 242.05 | |||
| Total content score | 0 and 1 | 5 (3–9) | 5.4 ± 2.61 | 19.851 | 0.001 |
| 2 | 5 (3–7) | 5.27 ± 1.33 | |||
| 3 | 7 (5–10) | 7 ± 1.71 | |||
| 4 | 7 (5–12) | 7.62 ± 2.26 | |||
| 5 | 10 (7–13) | 10.17 ± 1.94 | |||
| Interaction index | 0 and 1 | 1.06 (0.03–4.36) | 1.37 ± 1.76 | 3.894 | 0.421 |
| 2 | 1.18 (0–4.09) | 1.5 ± 1.24 | |||
| 3 | 2.16 (0.29–514.29) | 44.66 ± 147.9 | |||
| 4 | 1.97 (0.22–34.68) | 4.2 ± 9.2 | |||
| 5 | 1.88 (0.38–5.38) | 2.25 ± 1.74 |
Open in a new tab
Note:
Kruskal Wallis test, p < 0.05. Bold values indicate statistical significance.
Correlations between GQS, content analysis, and DISCERN scores
There were statistically significant differences in the comparison of GQS groups with DISCERN and total content score groups (p < 0.001, p < 0.001; Table 6). The correlation analysis between video characteristics and GQS, DISCERN, and total content scores found GQS had a low-medium statistically significant correlation with both video duration and total content scores (correlation coefficients of 0.235 and 0.517; p = 0.029, p < 0.001; Table 7). There were no statistically significant differences between video sources and GQS, DISCERN, and total content scores (p > 0.05; Table 8).
Table 6. Comparison of GQS, DISCERN, and total content scores.
| Generally poor quality | Moderate quality | Good quality | Excellent quality | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | Test statistics | p | ||
| DISCERN | 0 and 1 | 2 | 16.7 | 0 | 0.0 | 2 | 9.5 | 1 | 11.1 | 39.002 | <0.001 |
| 2 | 10 | 83.3 | 3 | 33.3 | 1 | 4.8 | 1 | 11.1 | |||
| 3 | 0 | 0.0 | 6 | 66.7 | 5 | 23.8 | 1 | 11.1 | |||
| 4 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 10 | 47.6 | 3 | 33.3 | |||
| 5 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 3 | 14.3 | 3 | 33.3 | |||
| Total content score | Slightly useful | 3 | 25.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 11.1 | 22.181 | <0.001 |
| Moderately useful | 9 | 75.0 | 8 | 88.9 | 14 | 66.7 | 1 | 11.1 | |||
| Useful & very useful | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 11.1 | 7 | 33.3 | 7 | 77.8 | |||
Open in a new tab
Note:
Fisher’s Exact test, p < 0.05. Bold values indicate statistical significance.
Table 7. Correlation between video characteristics and GQS, DISCERN, and total content scores.
| GQS | DISCERN | Total content score | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Duration | r | 0.235 | 0.137 | 0.319 |
| p | 0.029 | 0.194 | 0.005 | |
| Views | r | 0.072 | −0.002 | 0.039 |
| p | 0.505 | 0.987 | 0.731 | |
| Likes | r | 0.050 | 0.039 | 0.128 |
| p | 0.644 | 0.712 | 0.259 | |
| Comments | r | 0.069 | 0.032 | 0.122 |
| p | 0.536 | 0.769 | 0.297 | |
| Interaction index | r | −0.019 | 0.151 | 0.228 |
| p | 0.857 | 0.152 | 0.045 |
Open in a new tab
Note:
Kendal’s Tau correlation, p < 0.05. Bold values indicate statistical significance.
Table 8. Comparison of the video sources and their Global Quality Scores, DISCERN and total content scores.
| Oral health care professionals | Online information website | Universities, dental clinics, professional organization | Laypeople | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | Test statistics | p | ||
| GQS | Generally poor | 6 | 18.8 | 1 | 50.0 | 3 | 23.1 | 2 | 50.0 | 11.674 | 0.110 |
| Moderate | 3 | 9.4 | 0 | 0.0 | 5 | 38.5 | 1 | 25.0 | |||
| Good | 17 | 53.1 | 0 | 0.0 | 3 | 23.1 | 1 | 25.0 | |||
| Excellent | 6 | 18.8 | 1 | 50.0 | 2 | 15.4 | 0 | 0.0 | |||
| DISCERN | 0 ve 1 | 3 | 9.4 | 1 | 50.0 | 1 | 7.7 | 0 | 0.0 | 12.236 | 0.293 |
| 2 | 6 | 18.8 | 1 | 50.0 | 5 | 38.5 | 3 | 75.0 | |||
| 3 | 7 | 21.9 | 0 | 0.0 | 4 | 30.8 | 1 | 25.0 | |||
| 4 | 10 | 31.3 | 0 | 0.0 | 3 | 23.1 | 0 | 0.0 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 18.8 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | |||
| Total content | Slightly useful | 2 | 6.3 | 1 | 50.0 | 1 | 7.7 | 0 | 0.0 | 8.997 | 0.103 |
| Moderately useful | 17 | 53.1 | 1 | 50.0 | 11 | 84.6 | 3 | 75.0 | |||
| Useful & very useful | 13 | 40.6 | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 7.7 | 1 | 25.0 | |||
Open in a new tab
Note:
Fisher’s Exact test, p < 0.05.
Discussion
The results of the present study revealed statistically significant, positive associations between the GQS, total content score, and DISCERN indexes. Videos of good quality had more comments, and according to the total content scores, useful videos had higher interaction index scores and longer durations than slightly useful videos; however, no significant difference was detected in the number of views or likes. The majority of the related videos were moderately useful, without any difference according to the source of upload. Therefore, the hypotheses of the study were rejected. This study’s findings are important in that they reveal the need for oral health care professionals and organizations to add videos with higher quality and expanded content regarding oral hygiene practices in adults. Most of the included videos provided information about toothbrushing twice a day with toothpaste (82%), interdental cleaning (80%), and demonstration videos (68%). These results are in line with the findings of , who evaluated the quality of the videos on oral hygiene practices during the COVID-19 pandemic period. However, the topics of toothbrush renewal frequency (26%), toothbrush disinfection (20%), and tongue cleaning (43%) were rarely mentioned. Oral health care professionals and organizations should be aware of these results and focus on providing additional information on these oral hygiene topics that are lacking in current videos. Health care professionals should also look for appropriate videos when using YouTube™ for patient education.
The rise of technology has led to inevitable changes in human behavior, habits, and daily routines. The power of internet access makes lives easier by providing information faster than conventional search methods (Divakar, 2023). Due to the speed of internet answers, most people tend to obtain health-related information online. YouTube™ is an online platform where users can upload whatever content they want, and it is reported to be the second most-visited website worldwide (). A recent study reported that individuals use YouTube™ to not only gain knowledge but also to make decisions (; Smyth et al., 2020). Although there are many healthcare-related YouTube™ videos available, the quality, reliability, and content of these videos can be questionable (). Therefore, professional evaluation and criticism of these videos is of the utmost importance (Yagci, 2023). Misleading and poor-quality videos put YouTube™ users at risk of making wrong choices based on inaccurate information ().
Previous studies have indicated that individuals who want to get information from YouTube™ screen the initial 60–200 videos of a search, but only view the first 30 of them (; Duman, 2020; Desai et al., 2013). One study reported that most users view only the first three pages of a search, which includes the first 120 videos (). Beacuse of this finding, the present study screened only the first 150 videos for eligilibity. A review of the literature presented a limited number of studies, with varying hypotheses and study designs, examining the quality and reliability of YouTube™ videos for patient education on oral hygiene practices in adult individuals (; Smyth et al., 2020). Therefore, the findings of the present study may be considered pioneering in this field. In the present study, video duration and interaction indexes were significantly higher in useful videos compared to slightly useful ones, and good-quality videos had more comments lower-quality videos. The mean number of comments in this study was also higher than in previous studies assessing the content of oral hygiene YouTube™ videos during the COVID-19 pandemic () and in the pediatric population (). The present study also found significant positive correlations between video duration, total content score, and GQS. These results suggest that higher-quality videos receive more reactions, as evidenced by an increase in comments and interaction index scores. This finding aligns with that of previous studies, which have also reported a positive relationship between video duration and quality (; ). High-quality videos may be longer because they cover more important content on oral hygiene practices. The findings of the present study were also in line with previous studies reporting a positive relationship between number of likes, comments, views, and total content scores, revealing viewer behavior as higher-quality content receives more attention (; ; ). However, there are also studies that failed to observe any relationship between video duration, interaction index, and quality (Duman, 2020; ). This finding in these studies was attributed to the viewer’s loss of interest as the video duration increased, despite high-quality video content.
There are also some limitations of the present study. Due to the nature of the online video sharing platforms, the study results may differ if performed in a different time period since videos are constantly being removed and added. Additionally, the video search and analysis were performed by a single researcher, and the results reflect this researcher’s evaluation. Only including videos in English also did not capture useful videos in different languages.
Conclusions
Most of the adult oral hygiene YouTube™ videos were moderately useful, but lacked some important information, regardless of the upload source. Proper education of adults on oral hygiene is crucial for the prevention of caries and periodontal disease. Although oral health care professionals and organizations still have a pivotal role in disseminating information, the digital age has forced the modification of these conventional methods. In this context, the reliability and content quality of oral health-related videos should be checked regularly by oral health care professionals. New videos with enhanced content and different subtopics should be uploaded by universities or professional organizations in official channels specifically designed for sharing official healthcare-related information. Within the study limitations, it was concluded that further studies evaluating the video content of oral health-related information on different digital platforms are required.
Supplemental Information
Supplemental Information 1. Raw data for the statistical analysis.
peerj-12-18183-s001.xlsx (69.1KB, xlsx)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.18183/supp-1
Funding Statement
The authors received no funding for this work.
Additional Information and Declarations
Competing Interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Author Contributions
Gizem Ince Kuka conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.
Hare Gursoy analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.
Data Availability
The following information was supplied regarding data availability:
The raw data is available in the Supplemental File.
References
- Abukaraky et al. (2018).Abukaraky A, Hamdan AA, Ameera MN, Nasief M, Hassona Y. Quality of YouTube TM videos on dental implants. Medicina Oral Patología Oral y Cirugia Bucal. 2018;23(4):e463–e468. doi: 10.4317/medoral.22447. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Aksoy & Topsakal (2022).Aksoy M, Topsakal KG. YouTube. International Journal of Dental Hygiene. 2022;20(3):496–503. doi: 10.1111/idh.12580. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bernard et al. (2007).Bernard A, Langille M, Hughes S, Rose C, Leddin D, Veldhuyzen van Zanten S. A systematic review of patient inflammatory bowel disease information resources on the World Wide Web. The American Journal of Gastroenterology. 2007;102(9):2070–2077. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01325.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Charnock et al. (1999).Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health. 1999;53(2):105–111. doi: 10.1136/jech.53.2.105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Chu et al. (2017).Chu JT, Wang MP, Shen C, Viswanath K, Lam TH, Chan SSC. How, When and Why people seek health information online: qualitative study in Hong Kong. Interactive Journal of Medical Research. 2017;6(2):e24. doi: 10.2196/ijmr.7000. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- de Oliveira Júnior et al. (2023).de Oliveira Júnior AJ, Oliveira JM, Bretz YP, Mialhe FL. Online social networks for prevention and promotion of oral health: a systematic review. The Canadian Journal of Dental Hygiene. 2023;57(2):83–97. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Desai et al. (2013).Desai T, Shariff A, Dhingra V, Minhas D, Eure M, Kats M. Is content really king? An objective analysis of the public’s response to medical videos on YouTube. PLOS ONE. 2013;8(12):e82469. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0082469. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Divakar (2023).Divakar K. Impact of technology on human being and it’s behaviors. International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts. 2023;11(3):a358–a369. [Google Scholar]
- Duman (2020).Duman C. YouTube™ quality as a source for parent education about the oral hygiene of children. International Journal of Dental Hygiene. 2020;18(3):261–267. doi: 10.1111/idh.12445. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Erturk-Avunduk & Delikan (2023).Erturk-Avunduk AT, Delikan E. Evaluation of the quality of YouTube™ videos about pit and fissure sealant applications. International Journal of Dental Hygiene. 2023;21(3):590–598. doi: 10.1111/idh.12646. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Göller Bulut, Paksoy & Ustaoğlu (2023).Göller Bulut D, Paksoy T, Ustaoğlu G. Is online video a suitable source to obtain sufficient and useful information about peri-implantitis? Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2023;81(1):56–64. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2022.10.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hesse et al. (2005).Hesse BW, Nelson DE, Kreps GL, Croyle RT, Arora NK, Rimer BK, Viswanath K. Trust and sources of health information: the impact of the Internet and its implications for health care providers: findings from the first health information national trends survey. Archives of Internal Medicine. 2005;165(22):2618–2624. doi: 10.1001/archinte.165.22.2618. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Jain et al. (2023).Jain N, Dutt U, Radenkov I, Jain S. WHO’s global oral health status report 2022: actions, discussion and implementation. Oral Diseases. 2023;30(2):73–79. doi: 10.1111/odi.14516. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lang & Bartold (2018).Lang NP, Bartold PM. Periodontal health. Journal of Periodontology. 2018;89( Suppl 1):S9–S16. doi: 10.1002/JPER.16-0517. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Medlock et al. (2015).Medlock S, Eslami S, Askari M, Arts DL, Sent D, de Rooij SE, Abu-Hanna A. Health information-seeking behavior of seniors who use the Internet: a survey. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2015;17(1):e10. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3749. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mohamed & Shoufan (2024).Mohamed F, Shoufan A. Users’ experience with health-related content on YouTube: an exploratory study. BMC Public Health. 2024;24:86. doi: 10.1186/s12889-023-17585-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ozturk & Gumus (2022).Ozturk T, Gumus H. YouTube as an information and education source for early orthodontic treatment. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2022;162(3):e123–e132. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2022.06.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Oz & Kirzioglu (2021).Oz E, Kirzioglu Z. An analysis of YouTube videos on oral hygiene practices during coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Journal of Global Oral Health. 2021;4:84–93. doi: 10.25259/JGOH_2_2021. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Petersilka, Ehmke & Flemmig (2002).Petersilka GJ, Ehmke B, Flemmig TF. Antimicrobial effects of mechanical debridement. Periodontology 2000. 2002;28:56–71. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0757.2002.280103.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Singh, Singh & Singh (2012).Singh AG, Singh S, Singh PP. YouTube for information on rheumatoid arthritis—a wakeup call? The Journal of Rheumatology. 2012;39(5):899–903. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.111114. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Smyth et al. (2020).Smyth RSD, Amlani M, Fulton A, Sharif MO. The availability and characteristics of patient-focused YouTube videos related to oral hygiene instruction. British Dental Journal. 2020;228(10):773–781. doi: 10.1038/s41415-020-1527-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- World Health Organization (2023).World Health Organization Oral health. 2023. https://www.who.int/health-topics/oral-health https://www.who.int/health-topics/oral-health
- Yagci (2023).Yagci F. Evaluation of YouTube as an information source for denture care. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2023;129(4):623–629. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.06.045. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Yalcin-Ulker & Duygu (2023).Yalcin-Ulker GM, Duygu G. Evaluation of YoutubeTM videos as a patient education source for postoperative care after tooth extraction. Aydın Dental Journal. 2023;9(3):89–102. doi: 10.17932/IAU.DENTAL.2015.009/dental_v09i30010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Supplemental Information 1. Raw data for the statistical analysis.
peerj-12-18183-s001.xlsx (69.1KB, xlsx)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.18183/supp-1
Data Availability Statement
The following information was supplied regarding data availability:
The raw data is available in the Supplemental File.
