From Academia to Anecdotes: Assessing the Quality of Ulcerative Colitis Content on YouTube

Background: This study examines the varying impact of YouTube videos on Ulcerative Colitis (UC) from academic and private institutions. While academic channels offer evidence-based, scientifically vetted information, private sources may lack rigorous scrutiny and sometimes prioritize commercial or anecdotal content. With YouTube’s massive user base, the absence of an editorial process can result in misinformation. This discrepancy in content quality and credibility can significantly affect patient education and treatment outcomes for UC. Methods: We conducted a search on YouTube using the keywords “Ulcerative Colitis” and “UC IBD” to identify relevant videos. Exclusions were made for videos that were not in English, irrelevant, or lacked audio. We documented various video attributes such as views, likes, dislikes, comments, and the nature of the source (academic or private). The videos were then classified as reliable or unreliable based on the scientific accuracy of their content. We employed DISCERN, Global Quality Score (GQS), and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) to evaluate video quality. The consistency among seven investigators in applying DISCERN, GQS, and PEMAT was measured using intraclass correlation. Results: We reviewed 21 YouTube videos that appeared in the search results, of which 11 (52.3%) were academic and 10 (47.6%) were private. Academic videos received higher DISCERN scores than private ones (31±7.5 vs. 23.64±5.07, p=0.018). The Global Quality Score was also higher for academic videos (3.9 vs. 2.2, P< 0.01), as was the PEMAT score (4.1 vs. 2.7, p= 0.022). Furthermore, academic videos were found to have a positive correlation with the number of likes (OR: 0.75, P< 0.001), subscribers (OR: 0.68, P< 0.0001), and views (OR: 1.52, P< 0.001). Conclusions: Our study reveals significant quality discrepancies in YouTube videos on Ulcerative Colitis. Academic sources consistently outperformed private ones in accuracy and reliability, as indicated by higher DISCERN, Global Quality Score, and PEMAT ratings. The data also showed a positive correlation between academic sources and user engagement metrics like likes, subscribers, and views. These findings highlight the necessity of directing patients to academically backed information to minimize the risk of misinformation.