Cited by 1,290Social Media in Health EducationHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityMisinformation and Its Impacts

Healthcare information on YouTube: A systematic review

Madathil, Kapil Chalil, Rivera-Rodriguez, A Joy, Greenstein, Joel S, Gramopadhye, Anand K·2015·Health Informatics Journal

Abstract

This article reviews the peer-reviewed literature addressing the healthcare information available on YouTube. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were determined, and the online databases PubMed and Web of Knowledge were searched using the search phrases: (1) YouTube* AND Health* and (2) YouTube* AND Healthcare*. In all, 18 articles were reviewed, with the results suggesting that (1) YouTube is increasingly being used as a platform for disseminating health information; (2) content and frame analysis were the primary techniques employed by researchers to analyze the characteristics of this information; (3) YouTube contains misleading information, primarily anecdotal, that contradicts the reference standards and the probability of a lay user finding such content is relatively high; (4) the retrieval of relevant videos is dependent on the search term used; and (5) videos from government organizations and professional associations contained trustworthy and high-quality information. YouTube is used as a medium for promoting unscientific therapies and drugs that are yet to be approved by the appropriate agencies and has the potential to change the beliefs of patients concerning controversial topics such as vaccinations. This review recognizes the need to design interventions to enable consumers to critically assimilate the information posted on YouTube with more authoritative information sources to make effective healthcare decisions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1460458213512220

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Madathil, K. C., Rivera-Rodriguez, A. J., Greenstein, J. S., & Gramopadhye, A. K.
Affiliations
Clemson University (US)
Venue
Health Informatics Journal
Published
2014-03-25
Volume
21
Issue
3
Pages
173-194
ISSN
  • 1355-4743 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-4582
  • 1741-2811
OpenAlex
W2126563661
Cited by
1,290
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 158 · 2025: 160 · 2024: 160 · 2023: 182 · 2022: 173 · 2021: 175 · 2020: 100 · 2019: 74 · 2018: 41 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 3
FWCI
3.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Health Informatics Journal (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
Keywords
YouTube, health information, online health information, health misinformation, unproven treatments, unproven drugs, patient decision-making, health information quality, video retrieval, professional associations
MeSH terms
Health Education, Humans, Internet, Consumer Health Information, Social Media

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review