The Quality of Instructional YouTube Videos for the Administration of Intranasal Spray: Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis is a common disorder affecting both children and adults. Recommended treatment consists of intranasal corticosteroid spray administration, but only few patients administer the nasal spray in the correct technical manner. A wrong administration technique may result in side effects and affect the efficacy and adherence, thus making accurate administration instructions indispensable. Unfortunately, information about intranasal drug administration is generally not explained accurately, thereby leading to confusion among patients and inaccuracy in the self-administration of drugs. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we analyzed instructional videos available on YouTube for the administration of nasal sprays for allergic rhinitis. Our aim was to determine if the videos provided instructions in accordance with the standardized nationwide patient protocol in the Netherlands for intranasal spray administration. METHODS: Instructional videos for the administration of aqueous formulations of nasal spray for allergic rhinitis were found on YouTube. All videos were reviewed by 2 researchers and scored using the instructions from the Dutch standardized protocol. Correct instructions were given a score of 1, while incorrect or missing instructions were given a score of 0. The interrater reliability using Cohen ĸ was used to determine the differences in the scores between the researchers. RESULTS: We identified 33 YouTube videos made by different health care professionals and pharmaceutical companies around the world. None of the videos displayed all the steps correctly, while 5 of the 33 (15%) videos displayed over 75% of the steps correctly. The median score of the correctly displayed steps was 11 out of 19 (range 2-17, IQR 6). The interrater reliability using Cohen ĸ was statistically significant (range 0.872-1.00, P<.001). The steps "neutral position of the head," "breathing out through the mouth," and "periodically cleaning with water" scored the lowest and were incorrectly displayed in 28 (85%), 28 (85%), and 30 (91%) of the 33 videos, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of our study revealed that only few instructional videos on YouTube provided correct instructions for the administration of nasal sprays to patients. The inaccuracy of the instructions for nasal spray administration in the majority of the videos may lead to confusion in patients and incorrect use of nasal sprays. In the future, it is important to make evidence-based instructional videos that show patients the correct technique of nasal spray administration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.
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 | 0.004 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".