Abstract
Objectives:
This study evaluated the content and patient educational quality of YouTube videos on facelift surgery for facial rejuvenation. This study investigated the relationship between education quality compared to video content, video metrics, and popularity.
Methods:
Two hundred videos were identified across 4 search terms: “facelift surgery,” “facelift surgery what to expect,” “facelift surgery patient education,” and “what is facelift surgery.” Unrelated videos, operating room recordings, medical professional lectures, non-English, non-audio, and testimonials were excluded from review. Video quality was assessed using the Global Quality Score (GQS) (range: 1-5), modified DISCERN score (range: 5-25), and JAMA Benchmark Criteria (range: 0-4). Secondary outcomes included upload source, video metrics (views, likes, dislikes, duration, days since upload, comments), and Video Power Indexto measure popularity. The first 10 comments on videos were characterized as positive, neutral, or negative.
Results:
One hundred forty-three videos were excluded (43 did not meet criteria, 100 duplicates), and 57 videos were included. Fifty-five videos (96.5%) were uploaded by private medical practices. Overall video quality was poor across all 3 scoring systems: GQS (2.92 ± 1.14), modified DISCERN (13.03 ± 3.64), and JAMA Benchmark Criteria (1.78 ± 0.52). Popularity positively correlated with JAMA Benchmark Criteria (R = .49, P < .05) but did not correlate with other quality criteria.
Conclusions:
For patients undergoing facelift surgery, there are limited educational videos on YouTube with few videos detailing indications, alternatives, complications, and the postoperative course. YouTube is a growing resource for patient education and opportunities exist for medical institutions to produce higher-quality videos for prospective patients.
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
