0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Research Letters |

YouTube as a Source of Information on Immunization: A Content Analysis FREE

Jennifer Keelan, PhD; Vera Pavri-Garcia, PhD; George Tomlinson, PhD; Kumanan Wilson, MSc, MD
[+] Author Affiliations

Letters Section Editor: Robert M. Golub, MD, Senior Editor.


JAMA. 2007;298(21):2482-2484. doi:10.1001/jama.298.21.2482.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

To the Editor: Health care professionals have expressed concerns about the quality and veracity of information individuals receive from Internet-based sources.1 One area of controversy is the use of Internet sites to communicate information on immunization.2 YouTube is a video-sharing Internet Web site created in 2005 that provides free video streaming. It allows users to share multimedia clips that contain information related to the risks and benefits of immunization. To our knowledge, no studies have examined the content of these videos. We conducted a descriptive study to characterize the available information about immunization on YouTube.

Methods

On February 20, 2007, we searched YouTube (www.youtube.com) using the keywords vaccination and immunization. We included all unique videos with English-language content that contained any message about human immunization. We extracted information on the type of video, clip length, and scientific claims made by the video. We measured the users' interaction with these videos using view counts and the viewer reviews indicated by the star-rating system from 1 star (poor) to 5 stars (awesome). Videos were categorized as negative if the main message of the video portrayed immunization negatively (eg, emphasized the risk of immunization, advocated against immunizing, promoted distrust in vaccine science, made allegations of conspiracy or collusion between supporters of vaccination and manufacturers).

Videos were categorized as positive if the central message supported immunization, portraying it positively (eg, described the benefits and safety of immunizing, described immunization as a social good, or encouraged people to receive immunizations). Positive videos were labeled as public service announcements if they were made by governmental agencies or nongovernmental organizations to provide information about immunization as a service to the public. Videos were categorized as ambiguous if they either contained a debate or were ambivalent (ie, a beneficial or social good was countered by negative experiences such as anxious parents and crying infants). The scientific claims made by the videos were classified as substantiated or unsubstantiated/contradicts using as a reference standard the 2006 Canadian Immunization Guide3 and its human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine and thimerosal updates,4 which were the most current guidelines available at the time of the search. All videos were analyzed independently by 2 researchers (J.K. and V.P.G.) and disagreements were resolved by an arbitrator (K.W.).

Results

We identified and analyzed 153 videos. The weighted κ statistic for agreement on classification of videos was 0.93. Seventy-three (48%) of the videos were positive, 49 (32%) were negative, and 31 (20%) were ambiguous (Table 1). Compared with positive videos, negative videos were more likely to receive a rating, and they had a higher mean star rating and more views. Among the positive videos, public service announcements received the lowest mean (SD) ratings (2.6 [1.6] stars) and the fewest views (median, 213; interquartile range, 114-409). The most commonly discussed vaccine topic was general childhood vaccines (38 videos [25% of the total]). The most commonly discussed specific vaccine was the HPV vaccine (36 videos [24% of the total]); 20 of these were positive, 4 of which were industry-sponsored. Of the HPV vaccine-related videos, 24 specifically referred to Merck or Gardasil.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Ratings and Views of YouTube Videos About Immunizationsa

Of the negative videos, 22 (45%) conveyed messages that contradicted the reference standard. None of the positive videos made scientific statements that contradicted the reference standard. Table 2 lists the 5 most frequent topics and the scientific claims made.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Claims Made in YouTube Videos About Immunizationa
Comment

Approximately half of the videos posted were not explicitly supportive of immunization, and information in negative videos often contradicted the reference standard. The video ratings and view counts suggest the presence of a community of YouTube users critical of immunization. Clinicians therefore need to be aware of Internet video-sharing sites and should be prepared to respond to patients who obtain their health information from these sources.5 The potential use of these sites for effective communication by health professionals should also be considered.

Financial Disclosures: None reported.

Author Contributions: Dr Wilson had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: Keelan, Wilson.

Acquisition of data: Keelan, Pavri-Garcia, Wilson.

Analysis and interpretation of data: Keelan, Pavri-Garcia, Tomlinson, Wilson.

Drafting of the manuscript: Keelan, Wilson.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Keelan, Tomlinson, Pavri-Garcia, Wilson.

Statistical analysis: Tomlinson.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Keelan, Pavri-Garcia, Wilson.

Study supervision: Keelan, Wilson.

Financial Disclosures: None reported.

Funding/Support: None.

References
Greenberg L, D'Andrea G, Lorence D. Setting the public agenda for online health search: a white paper and action agenda.  J Med Internet Res. 2004;6(2):e18
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Wolfe RM, Sharp LK, Lipsky MS. Content and design attributes of antivaccination Web sites.  JAMA. 2002;287(24):3245-3248
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Public Health Agency of Canada.  Canadian Immunization Guide7th ed. Ottawa, Ontario: Publishing and Depository Services Public Works and Government Services Canada; 2006
Canadian National Advisory Committee on Immunization.  NACI recommendations and updates. http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/naci-ccni/. Accessed May 1, 2007
Khamsi R. Is YouTube just what the doctor ordered? New Scientist. January 2, 2007. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10859.html. Accessed May 1, 2007

Figures

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Ratings and Views of YouTube Videos About Immunizationsa
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Claims Made in YouTube Videos About Immunizationa

References

Greenberg L, D'Andrea G, Lorence D. Setting the public agenda for online health search: a white paper and action agenda.  J Med Internet Res. 2004;6(2):e18
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Wolfe RM, Sharp LK, Lipsky MS. Content and design attributes of antivaccination Web sites.  JAMA. 2002;287(24):3245-3248
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Public Health Agency of Canada.  Canadian Immunization Guide7th ed. Ottawa, Ontario: Publishing and Depository Services Public Works and Government Services Canada; 2006
Canadian National Advisory Committee on Immunization.  NACI recommendations and updates. http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/naci-ccni/. Accessed May 1, 2007
Khamsi R. Is YouTube just what the doctor ordered? New Scientist. January 2, 2007. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10859.html. Accessed May 1, 2007

Letters

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 103

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles