ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Video-sharing platforms are a common source for health information such as Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. It is important that they provide good quality, evidence-based information. However, to date, the quality of information surrounding COVID-19 vaccines on video-sharing platforms has not been established. OBJECTIVE: This study developed an assessment tool to evaluate the quality of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine videos on YouTube, Facebook Watch and TikTok. METHODS: Assessment of quality was based on understandability, actionability, accuracy, comprehensiveness and reliability. Videos were searched using the keywords "COVID-19 vaccine", "Coronavirus vaccine" and "SARS-CoV-2 vaccine". Seventy-two videos were evaluated. Descriptive statistics, Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon-rank sum tests were used for analysis. RESULTS: YouTube had the highest median composite score compared to TikTok (36.8% versus 27.5%, p = 0.001). YouTube also had the highest median reliability score (37.5%), but those of Facebook Watch (35.0%) and TikTok (35.0%) were only marginally lower. Median accuracy scores of all platforms were 100%, but their median comprehensiveness scores were low (YouTube 12.5%; Facebook Watch 6.3%; TikTok 6.3%, p = 0.004). Median actionability scores (0%) were the lowest for all platforms. TikTok had the highest median understandability score compared to YouTube and Facebook Watch (96.9% versus 80.0 each, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The overall quality of videos on all video-sharing platforms were low. All platforms provided accurate COVID-19 vaccine information, but TikTok videos were the most understandable. Most videos did not provide full details about COVID-19 vaccines, thus viewers would need to watch several videos before making a better-informed decision.
ABSTRACT
Telehealth is a growing field, its pertinence magnified by COVID-19 causing the accelerated digitalization of the world. Given the significant global demand to provide telehealth services, it is important to explore patient receptiveness toward this alternative service model, particularly from regions where it has yet to be implemented. We conducted a cross-sectional study to understand the views and willingness of patients toward the use of telehealth for cancer genetic counseling. A survey was completed by 160 patients of the National Cancer Centre Singapore, and descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. The study found that 95.6% (n = 153/160) of participants did not have prior telehealth experience. Most participants were willing or neutral toward having genetic counseling by phone (n = 114/160, 71.3%) and video (n = 106/160, 66.3%). However, majority prefer in-person appointments for first (n = 127/160, 79.4%) and follow-up (n = 97/160, 60.6%) visits over telehealth. Majority agreed that a phone/video consultation would meet most of their needs but voiced concerns regarding privacy and sharing of information (n = 79/160, 49.4% for phone; n = 74/160, 46.3% for video) and whether their emotional needs could be met (n = 61/160, 38.1%). Participants' age, employment status, income, mode of transportation to the appointment, and whether special arrangements were made to attend the in-person appointment were associated with receptivity to telehealth genetic counseling (p ≤ .05 for all). This study adds diversity to existing literature and demonstrates that patients from Asia are generally willing and accepting of the use of telehealth in a cancer genetics service. This will help meet increasing global demand of telehealth consultations in the post-pandemic new norm. Furthermore, it will also provide services for underserved populations and patients requiring urgent testing in a timely manner. Further studies are needed to explore the cost-effectiveness and fair billing methods, as well as willingness and acceptability of telehealth genetic counseling in post-COVID times.