A content analysis of YouTube videos on palliative care: understanding the quality and availability of online resources.

Abstract

Improvement in quality care is an important aspect of palliative care for individuals with serious illnesses. Palliative care is a multidisciplinary strategy that addresses the physical, emotional, social, and spiritual needs of patients and their families. As technology advances, digital media - especially YouTube - has come to serve as a virtual educational platform, offering resources for health-related information, including information about palliative care. In this research, the main goal was to evaluate the quality and availability of online resources related to palliative care. Two theoretical frameworks were used: the Health Communication Model and the Information Quality Framework. These frameworks offer a way to understand how YouTube videos contribute to palliative care information and assess the quality of that information. This study utilizes a quantitative analysis approach to assess the quality and accessibility of YouTube videos on palliative care. Specifically, a random sample of 300 YouTube videos addressing palliative care was examined. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data, including the frequency and distribution of the different types of content, sources, and quality indicators. Chi-square tests were done to compare the quality of information provided by different sources and types of content. The results showed a variety of video types, with educational videos being the most common (40%), followed by personal stories (26.7%) and promotional videos (16.7%). We found that healthcare organizations (30%) and individual content creators (46.7%) were the sources for these videos. There were varying scores in terms of accuracy, completeness, and relevance when it came to quality assessment. While many videos received excellent ratings, some received poor ratings. Additionally, this analysis revealed that the majority of these videos were in English (83.3%), which poses a limitation for non-English speakers who may have difficulty understanding them.