Abstract
Objective
This study aimed to evaluate the quality, reliability, and popularity of anemia-related videos on the YouTube social media platform.
Methods
A total of 50 English-language videos were selected by searching the keyword “anemia” on YouTube in March 2024 using an incognito mode on a desktop device in Turkey. The “relevance” filter was used as it reflects default user behavior and prioritizes algorithmically ranked results. Duplicate, non-English, music-only, and promotional videos were excluded. Videos were evaluated using DISCERN, global quality score (GQS), JAMA benchmark criteria, and video power index (VPI), calculated as: VPI = like ratio (%) × view rate (/day) / 100.
Results
Of the 50 videos analyzed, 2% were uploaded by patients, 10% by non-physician healthcare professionals, 14% by media organizations, 24% by independent physicians, and 50% by medical institutions. The mean VPI was 246.76 ± 356.29, GQS 3.53 ± 0.81, JAMA 2.30 ± 0.97, and DISCERN 48.24 ± 11.94. A statistically significant correlation was found between the number of likes, like ratio, and GQS scores (p = 0.027 and p = 0.012, respectively). VPI showed a weak but significant correlation with GQS (p = 0.047, r = 0.28). Video duration showed a moderate correlation with DISCERN (r = 0.394, p = 0.005) and a weak correlation with JAMA scores (r = 0.338, p = 0.016).
Conclusion
The quality and reliability of anemia-related videos on YouTube are generally moderate and variable. Videos uploaded by healthcare professionals were significantly more reliable and of higher quality. These findings highlight the need for health professionals to produce accurate and engaging content and for users to be guided toward evidence-based sources.
Introduction
Anemia is one of the most common hematological health problems globally and is a systemic condition that can affect individuals of all ages. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), approximately 1.62 billion people worldwide are living with anemia, accounting for about 24.8% of the global population. 1 The clinical symptoms of anemia include fatigue, palpitations, shortness of breath, dizziness, and difficulty concentrating, all of which can significantly impair quality of life. The etiology of anemia is highly diverse and includes iron deficiency, vitamin B12 deficiency, folic acid deficiency, chronic diseases, blood loss, hemolytic causes, and bone marrow failure.2,3 This broad clinical spectrum contributes to the public's increased curiosity and search for information about anemia.
In recent years, the widespread use of the internet and social media platforms has enabled individuals to access health-related information more quickly and easily. Studies indicate that approximately 80% of users utilize social media and online platforms to gather information about diseases. 4 YouTube, in particular, is frequently used for this purpose due to its status as the second most visited website globally. 5 There are thousands of videos related to anemia on YouTube, and these videos are actively watched by users. However, the quality and reliability of the health content shared on this platform vary significantly. Consequently, viewers may be exposed to incorrect or incomplete information, which could lead to serious health consequences.
Previous studies have shown that YouTube health-related videos are generally of low quality and lack reliability.6–9 Despite this, very few studies have focused specifically on evaluating the quality and reliability of content related to anemia. Given that anemia is a prevalent condition that raises public interest due to its diverse etiologies, this study aimed to fill that gap by analyzing the quality and reliability of YouTube videos concerning anemia.
Materials and methods
This cross-sectional study evaluated the quality and reliability of anemia-related videos on YouTube. On 15th March 2024, a search was performed using the keyword “anemia” on YouTube in incognito mode on a desktop browser in Turkey. The search was conducted from Turkey without a logged-in account. The first 50 English-language videos listed under the default “relevance” filter were included, as this filter represents typical user behavior. Videos were included if they were in English language, had audible and comprehensible speech, contained content directly related to anemia (definition, causes, symptoms), management, or patient experiences. Videos were excluded if they were non-English, duplicates, consisted only of music or animation without narration, with only subtitles or dubbing, advertisements, promotional content, or unrelated to anemia.
Videos were evaluated based on upload date, number of views, number of likes, number of comments, video duration (in seconds), uploader type (e.g., healthcare professional, individual, health institution), and content type (e.g., educational, personal experience, promotional).
The global quality score (GQS), DISCERN instrument, and JAMA benchmark criteria were used to evaluate each video. The Video Power Index (VPI), a measure of popularity, was calculated using the formula:
This formula is frequently used in health-related studies to reflect online popularity. 10
The GQS was used to assess video quality. This 5-point scale evaluates the overall flow, informativeness, and usefulness of a video, and has been successfully employed in many health-related video studies. 11
The DISCERN tool was used to assess content reliability. It consists of 16 questions covering three domains: reliability, quality of information, and overall rating. Each question is rated on a scale from 1 to 5, yielding a total score ranging from 16 to 80. This instrument was developed to objectively evaluate the quality and neutrality of health information and its citation practices. 12
The JAMA benchmark criteria assess the presence of four elements: authorship, attribution, disclosure, and currency. Each component is awarded one point for a maximum score of 4. 13
Two independent reviewers with experience in medical research scored each video. In case of disagreement, a third reviewer was consulted to reach consensus. The interrater reliability was assessed using Cohen's kappa coefficient (κ = 0.82), which indicates a high level of agreement. A sample size of 50 videos was selected as it aligns with previous studies on health-related YouTube content, ensuring sufficient power to detect meaningful patterns while maintaining feasibility.
Results
Of the 50 videos analyzed, 1 (2%) was uploaded by patients, 5 (10%) by non-physician healthcare professionals, 7 (14%) by media organizations, 12 (24%) by physicians, and 25 (50%) by medical institutions (Table 1).
Upload source.
The average duration of all videos was 799.26 ± 1353.51 s (range: 40–6134), the average view count was 305,759.48 ± 438,732.41 (range: 473–2,401,474), and the average time since upload was 1499.34 ± 1209.9 days (range: 60–5150). The average view rate was 257.12 ± 360.73 views/day, like count was 4296.48 ± 7474.90, dislike count was 181.34 ± 259.47, and like ratio was 93.20 ± 5.71% (Table 2).
Descriptive statistics.
The average VPI, GQS, JAMA, and DISCERN scores were calculated as 246.76 ± 356.29, 3.53 ± 0.81, 2.30 ± 0.97, and 48.24 ± 11.94, respectively (Table 3).
VPI, GQS, JAMA and DISCERN values of the videos.
According to GQS, 48% of the videos were rated as low-to-moderate quality. Based on JAMA and DISCERN scores, 58% and 54% of the videos, respectively, were found to be of low-to-moderate quality.
A statistically significant relationship was found between like count and like ratio with GQS scores (p = 0.027 and p = 0.012, respectively). A moderate positive correlation was observed between view count and VPI (r = 0.49, p < 0.01), indicating that more frequently viewed videos tended to have higher popularity.
However, no significant correlations were found between upload source (Figure 1), view count, time since upload, and dislike count with DISCERN, GQS, or JAMA scores (p > 0.05).
Mean scores (GQS, VPI, JAMA, DISCERN) by uploader type.
A moderate correlation was observed between video duration and DISCERN score (r = 0.394, p = 0.005), and a weak correlation was found between video duration and JAMA score (r = 0.338, p = 0.016), suggesting that longer videos may have greater reliability and transparency.
A weak but significant correlation was found between VPI and GQS scores (p = 0.047, r = 0.28), while no statistically significant relationships were identified between VPI and DISCERN or JAMA scores (p = 0.064, r = 0.26 and p = 0.115, r = 0.22, respectively) (Table 4).
Correlation of scoring systems.
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
**Very low correlation if 0 < r < 0.2.
0.2 < r < 0.4 low correlation.
0.4 < r < 0.6 medium relationship.
0.6 < r < 0.8 high correlation.
0.8 < r < 1 very high correlation.
The distribution of average DISCERN, GQS, JAMA, and VPI scores according to uploader type is presented in Table 5 and Figure 2, which clearly demonstrate that physicians’ videos achieved the highest quality and reliability scores, whereas patient-uploaded content scored the lowest across all measures.
Comparison of DISCERN, GQS, JAMA, and VPI scores by uploader type.
Distribution of average DISCERN, GQS, JAMA, and VPI scores by uploader type.
Discussion
This study aimed to evaluate the content quality, reliability, and popularity of videos related to anemia on the YouTube platform. While numerous studies have explored YouTube as a source of medical information, this study is the first to comprehensively evaluate the quality, reliability, and popularity of anemia-related YouTube videos. Our findings show that overall quality is moderate, with videos from healthcare professionals scoring higher in GQS and DISCERN.
Anemia affects approximately 1.6 billion people worldwide, making it a global health issue of substantial impact. 1 As both a standalone condition and a symptom of various underlying diseases, anemia's broad clinical spectrum increases public interest and demand for accessible health information. Social media platforms, particularly YouTube, have emerged as popular resources for obtaining such information. However, the lack of quality control mechanisms on these platforms raises concerns about misinformation and inconsistent content standards.14,15
Our findings indicate that the overall information quality and reliability of anemia-related YouTube videos are moderate. The mean GQS was 3.52, and 48% of videos were found to be of low-to-moderate quality. Similarly, the mean DISCERN score, widely used to evaluate the quality of patient information, was 48.24 ± 11.94. According to the DISCERN scale, scores between 40–60 are generally considered “moderate,” while values above 60 indicate “high” quality and reliability. Therefore, the average DISCERN score in our study suggests that most anemia-related videos provide only partial or incomplete information. Likewise, GQS values close to 3 represent moderate quality, whereas values above 4 reflect high-quality content. For JAMA, a mean score of 2.3 out of 4 indicates that essential elements such as authorship, attribution, disclosure, or currency were frequently missing. These findings are consistent with prior studies that evaluated the quality of online health content on other medical conditions16–18
Previous research has also shown that videos uploaded by healthcare professionals tend to be more reliable and higher in quality. Our results support this observation, demonstrating that videos uploaded by medical professionals received significantly higher DISCERN and GQS scores (p < 0.05).19,20 For example, Park et al. (2024) demonstrated that exposure to high-quality YouTube content significantly improved users’ health literacy and behavioral intention in a randomized controlled trial. 21 Likewise, a 2025 study published in JMIR Infodemiology reported that while most videos about celiac disease lacked credibility, those uploaded by professionals had significantly higher DISCERN and JAMA scores. 22
Interestingly, our study also revealed that videos uploaded by individual users had higher VPI scores, highlighting that more popular videos do not necessarily equate to higher-quality content. We observed a moderate positive correlation between view count and VPI (r = 0.49, p < 0.01), indicating that as videos accumulate more views, their popularity index increases. However, a weak but statistically significant correlation between VPI and GQS (p = 0.047, r = 0.28) suggests that popular videos are not always of high informational quality.
Conversely, no significant correlations were found between DISCERN or JAMA scores and VPI, indicating that content reliability and source transparency are not necessarily linked with popularity. These results imply that YouTube users are more influenced by presentation style and accessibility than by accuracy or trustworthiness. This trend has also been reported in prior studies on a variety of health topics including diabetes, hypertension, cancer, orthopedic procedures, and dental care.23–25
A key insight is that high view counts or popularity do not always equate to reliable content. Although VPI was weakly associated with GQS, no correlation was found with DISCERN or JAMA, suggesting that viewers may prioritize engagement over accuracy.
To improve clarity, a visual comparison of DISCERN, GQS, and VPI scores across different uploader types (e.g., physicians, institutions, patients, media organizations) could further highlight the differences in quality, reliability, and popularity. Such a summary figure or chart would visually demonstrate that professionally uploaded content generally scores higher in reliability metrics, whereas non-professional uploads often achieve higher popularity.
As presented in Table 5 and Figure 2, physicians’ videos achieved the highest DISCERN, GQS, and JAMA scores, while patient-uploaded and non-physician healthcare professionals videos scored the lowest across all measures, further emphasizing the importance of professional involvement in digital health communication.
This study has some limitations. Firstly, only English-language videos were analyzed, and potentially valuable content in other languages was excluded. Secondly, the YouTube algorithm personalizes results based on user history, which may influence the visibility and ranking of videos. Thirdly, the scoring systems used rely on subjective evaluations, which may introduce inter-rater variability despite reviewer consensus. Additionally, the classification of uploaders may not always be entirely accurate. Some channels identify themselves as health professionals without providing verifiable credentials, while others represent organizations or institutions in an unofficial capacity. These ambiguities could have influenced the accuracy of uploader categorization in our analysis.
Our study has several implications. Clinicians and public health institutions should actively contribute evidence-based videos to digital platforms. Additionally, educational campaigns should aim to raise awareness among users about evaluating online health content.
Healthcare professionals could collaborate with communication specialists to design engaging yet scientifically accurate videos tailored for diverse audiences. Integrating storytelling techniques and visual aids may enhance user engagement without compromising information quality.
Public health organizations might consider partnering with popular content creators to disseminate key messages, leveraging their reach to improve public awareness about anemia. Moreover, establishing verified channels or playlists endorsed by medical authorities could guide users toward trustworthy content.
Our findings align with prior studies analyzing health-related content for conditions like diabetes and cancer, where variability in quality and low reliability are common.
Future research should explore interventions to improve user media literacy and assess the impact of professional content on public health outcomes. It should also investigate strategies for integrating high-quality online content into patient education programs, potentially improving health literacy and engagement.
Conclusion
YouTube is a highly accessible platform for health information, but the quality of content related to anemia varies greatly. This study reveals that nearly half of the anemia-related videos are of low-to-moderate quality. Videos uploaded by healthcare professionals were significantly more accurate and reliable.
These findings highlight the need for health professionals to create high-quality digital content and for users to critically evaluate online information. Viewers should prioritize videos from verified medical sources and check for clear authorship, references, and up-to-date information.
Promoting reliable digital health content can improve health literacy, support early diagnosis, and guide informed treatment decisions in the general population.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank no one in particular.
Ethics approval and consent
This study does not contain any human or animal resources, so no need for ethical approval.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Author contributions
BGT: Writing, Statistical Analysis; SBT and ÇK: Data Collection, Evaluation; SBT: Statistical Review, critical revision. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Availability of data and materials
The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.