Quality of Tooth-Whitening Videos Available on YouTube

The video that was uploaded in a year was collected on YouTube using the keywords tooth whitening and dental bleaching. The exclusion criteria were duplicate videos, advertisements, no sound, too short duration, and lectures. The variables analyzed were likes/dislikes, viewers, interaction index, viewing rate, usefulness, global quality scale (GQS), and comprehensiveness score. Two observers reviewed the videos independently. Data were analyzed descriptively and analytically.

Results:

A total of 106 videos were selected, and most were uploaded by laypersons (70.8%). The observer reliability test showed excellent agreement with the intraclass correlation coefficient score minimum of 0.876. There were significant differences in dislikes (p=0.003), views (p=0.016), interaction index (p=0.010), usefulness (p=0.030), GQS (p<0.0001), and comprehensiveness (p=0.014) between healthcare professionals and laypersons. Videos made by laypersons had higher numbers of dislikes and viewing rates, whereas healthcare professionals were higher in usefulness, GQS, and comprehensiveness.

Conclusion:

Videos uploaded by laypersons provide low-accurate information despite being popular among viewers. Viewers need to be selective in seeking information from YouTube as a resource for oral healthcare decision-related tooth whitening.

Keywords:
Tooth Bleaching; Social Media; Video-Audio Media; Internet

Variables	Healthcare Professional Median (Min-Max)	Layperson Median (Min-Max)	p-value
Likes	38 (0–2,447)	61 (0–10,000)	0.119
Dislikes	0(0–71)	2 (0–169)	0.003^* * Statistically Significant.
Views	738 (9–130,339)	2,631 (6–167,184)	0.016^* * Statistically Significant.
Duration (min:s)	05:52 (01:27–35:45)	07:13 (01:42–31:43)	0.071
Days since upload	190 (7–362)	234(21–369)	0.153
Interaction index	4.7 (0–20)	2.32 (0–25.23)	0.010^* * Statistically Significant.
Viewing rate	3.54(0.03–365.12)	12.53 (0.29–1,462.63)	0.069
GQS	3(1–5)	2 (1–4)	<0.001^* * Statistically Significant.
Comprehensiveness score	15 (9–29)	13 (9–22)	0.014^* * Statistically Significant.
Usefulness score	5 (0–7)	3(1–6)	0.030^* * Statistically Significant.

Variables	Healthcare Professional (n = 31)		Layperson (n = 75)		Total
	N	%	N	%	N	%
Comprehensiveness Score
Poor Information	22	23.4	72	76.6	94	88.7
Moderate Information	5	62.5	3	37.5	8	7.6
Complete Information	4	100	0	0	4	3.8
GQS Score
Poor	1	3.6	27	96.4	28	26.4
Low	3	8.3	33	91.7	36	34.0
Moderate	15	55.6	12	44.4	27	25.5
Generally Good	7	70	3	30	10	9.4
Exceptional	5	100	0	0	6	4.7
Usefulness
Poor	6	18.8	26	81.3	32	30.2
Good	18	28.6	45	71.4	63	59.4
Excellent	7	63.6	4	36.4	11	10.4

Item Scored	N (%)
Very poor quality of information, poor flow, incomplete, no useful information for patients	28 (26.4)
Poor quality of information, poor flow, some information covered but many important topics neglected, limited benefit of information for patients	36 (34.0)
Moderate quality of information, ideal flow, some important information explained but other information neglected, little useful information for patients	27 (25.5)
Good quality of information, good flow, a lot of relevant information but some information neglected, useful information for patients	10 (9.4)
Very good quality of information, very good flow, very useful information for patients	5 (4.7)

Associação de Apoio à Pesquisa em Saúde Bucal Avenida Epitácio Pessoa, 4161 - Sala 06, Miramar, CEP: 58020-388, João Pessoa, PB - Brasil, Tel.: 55-83-98773 2150 - João Pessoa - PB - Brazil
E-mail: apesb@terra.com.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Correspondence: Yuanita Lely Rachmawati, Jalan Veteran, Kota Malang, Jawa Timur, Indonesia 65145. E-mail: yuanita.rachmawati.fk@ub.ac.id