YouTube as a Source of (Mis)Information on Allergic Rhinitis

To assess the usefulness and popularity of YouTube videos about allergic rhinitis (AR) for patient education.

There were 225 videos screened, with 86 meeting the inclusion criteria for further evaluation.

Videos were selected by keywords associated with AR (hay fever, allergy), filtered by views, language, and relevance to education for the preselected topics, resulting in 33 videos for “AR,” 31 for “hay fever,” and 22 for “allergy” included in the analysis. Data obtained included: name and category of uploader, date of release, duration, uniform resource locator, language, date of search, views, likes, dislikes, and comments. The YouTube profile was classified based on characteristics of the uploader: (1) specialist, (2) Doctor of Medicine (MD), (3) non-MD health care provider (HCP), (4) nonmedical provider, (5) association, (6) pharmaceutical company, (7) university or hospital or (8) television or YouTube station and were reviewed by 2 authors. The content was classified as follows: (1) useful, video conveys scientifically correct information; (2) misleading, video conveys at least 1 scientifically unproven detail; or (3) neither useful nor misleading using a prespecified scoring system.

The median number of views for each video was 132 104, and the median number of likes, dislikes, and comments for each video were 2048, 93, and 181, respectively. Of the videos, 17.5% were uploaded by a specialist, MD, or HCP; however, 39.5% of the videos were uploaded by a YouTube channel or TV show and garnered the greatest interaction. Videos uploaded by universities and hospitals had the greatest number of median views (973 695) in contrast to videos by non-MD HCP (66 676). Videos uploaded by companies had the greatest number of views. Of the analyzed videos, 43% were useful, 36% misleading, and 21% were neither useful nor misleading. Videos produced by TV shows or YouTube channels made up 48% of all misleading videos and were the most common source of uploaders. Additionally, 80% of the videos uploaded by non-HCP were deemed to be misleading.

Most videos are uploaded by non-HCP sources and have a high proportion of misleading information as compared with those uploaded by HCP and associations, which tend to upload mostly useful videos. Further, less than half (43%) of the videos were useful and misleading videos generate more user interaction through likes and comments than do useful videos. Useful and misleading videos are comparable in popularity (views). There was no correlation with the usefulness and popularity of the YouTube videos. In conclusion, the usefulness of the YouTube videos on AR is variable, and YouTube can be used as a valid source of information on AR, given that competent uploaders provide it.

YouTube content is ever-changing and popularity, not quality, drives visibility. It is critical that physicians discuss misinformation with their patients and provide reliable prescreened content to facilitate safe and effective patient education.