YouTube as a Source of Health Information on Onychomycosis in Thailand: A Quality Assessment Study

Le résumé fourni par la source

Background: YouTube is a basic source of health information, but the quality of content regarding onychomycosis in Thailand remains under-evaluated. Objective: To assess the quality, reliability, and engagement of YouTube videos on onychomycosis from the perspectives of medical experts and Generation Z student researchers. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional analysis was conducted on YouTube videos related to onychomycosis in Thai. Videos were categorized by source: healthcare personnel and non-healthcare personnel. Quality and reliability were evaluated using the DISCERN tool, JAMA benchmark criteria, the Global Quality Scale (GQS), and the Video Information and Quality Index (VIQI). Qualitative data were gathered through internal group discussion with Generation Z researchers to identify engagement and noted reliability. Results: Most videos were produced by non-healthcare personnel, with board-certified physicians accounting for only 27% of the content. Healthcare personnel-led videos scored significantly higher in JAMA (transparency), DISCERN (treatment reliability), VIQI (flow and technical clarity), and GQS (quality and flow). Non-healthcare personnel videos frequently promoted harmful or improper treatments. Students identified a “30-second window” critical for engagement and a preference for clear professional affiliation. Interestingly, students’ perceptions of video quality strongly correlated with expert quality assessments. One video utilized artificial intelligence-generated data, highlighting an emerging trend in content creation. Conclusion: Professional medical content on YouTube provides superior quality and reliability but is less prevalent than non-professional content. There is an urgent need for board-certified physicians to increase their video output to reduce misinformation.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.