ePatients on YouTube: Analysis of Four Experiences From the Patients' Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many patients share their personal experiences and opinions using online video platforms. These videos are watched by millions of health consumers and health care professionals. Although it has become a popular phenomenon, little is known about patients who share videos online and why they do so. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore the motivations and challenges faced by patients who share videos about their health and experiences on YouTube. As part of a conference discussion, we asked several patients actively engaged on YouTube to make a video explaining their motivations. This paper discusses these videos. METHODS: In this qualitative study, we performed an analysis of the videos created by 4 patients about their self-reported motivations and challenges they face as YouTube users. First, two judges compared the transcriptions and decided the exact wording when confusing content was found. Second, two judges categorized the content of the videos to identify the major themes. RESULTS: four main categories emerged: (1) the origin or cause for making the first video, (2) the objectives that they achieve by continuing to make videos, (3) the perception of community, and (4) the negative consequences of the experience. CONCLUSIONS: The main reason for making videos was to bridge the gap between traditional health information about their diseases and everyday life. The first consequence of sharing their life on YouTube was a loss of privacy. However, they also experienced the positive effects of expressing their feelings, being part of a large community of peers, and helping others to deal with a chronic condition.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".