MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3012745687 · doi:10.2196/14411

Information About Sunscreen on YouTube and Considerations for Sun Safety Promotion: Content Analysis

2020· article· en· W3012745687 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anne K. Julian, Jessica Welch, Maddison M Bean, Sarah Shahid, Frank M. Perna

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Dermatology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media in Health Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSun protection factorSun protectionMedicineTerminologyThe InternetPromotion (chess)Inclusion (mineral)Internet privacyWorld Wide WebDermatologyComputer sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Sunscreen use is a popular sun protection method; however, application of sunscreen rarely meets the standards recommended for effectiveness. Access to information about how to effectively use sunscreen may play a role in proper sunscreen application. The internet is a common health information source; however, the quality of sunscreen-related content varies. Objective The objective of this study was to examine information about sunscreen in YouTube videos by video source. Methods In November 2017, the authors identified the 20 most popular YouTube videos (sorted by view count and relevance) for each of these 5 search terms: sunscreen cancer, sunscreen health, sunscreen information, sunscreen ingredients, and sunscreen natural. The inclusion criteria were English language and view count >1000 (N=111 unique videos). We double-coded videos for standard recommendations for sunscreen use (eg, apply 20 minutes before sun exposure), use of outdated terminology, and recommendation of complementary sun safety strategies. Results The view counts ranged from 1100 to 671,142 (median 17,774, SD 109,651) and the average daily views ranged from 1 to 1448 (median 23, SD 234). End users (46/111, 41.4%) and health care providers (24/111, 21.6%) were the most common sources, and none of the most popular videos were produced by federal agencies or cancer-related nongovernmental organizations. Health care provider videos included marginally more recommendations than end user videos (mean 1.46, SD 1.96 vs mean 1.05, SD 1.20), but few (19/111, 17.1%) mentioned reapplication. The videos were generally positive toward sunscreen (82/111, 73.9%); however, some videos were negative (29/111, 26.1%), with warnings about the health risks of chemical sunscreens and their ingredients. Do-it-yourself sunscreen tutorials represented 19/111 (17.1%) of the sample. Conclusions YouTube is a potential source for disseminating sun safety messages; however, the quality of its sunscreen content varies. Most of the videos in our study failed to include important sunscreen use recommendations. Clinicians should be prepared to address the information needs of patients by discussing effective, evidence-based sunscreen application and recommending a combined sun safety approach.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.454
Threshold uncertainty score0.486

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.212
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR DermatologySame topicSocial Media in Health EducationFrench-language works237,207