Volume 36, Issue 3 pp. 603-613
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

YouTube Videos of Pacemaker Implantation: An Assessment of Information Content and Quality

Pok-Tin Tang

Pok-Tin Tang

Wiltshire Cardiac Centre, Great Western Hospital, Great Western Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Swindon, UK

Search for more papers by this author
C. Fielder Camm

Corresponding Author

C. Fielder Camm

Keble College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Department of Cardiology, Royal Berkshire Hospital, Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust, Reading, UK

Correspondence: C. Fielder Camm ([email protected])

Search for more papers by this author
Saffron Rajappan

Saffron Rajappan

University College London Medical School, London, UK

Search for more papers by this author
Richard D. Sale

Richard D. Sale

Salisbury District Hospital, Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust, Salisbury, UK

Search for more papers by this author
Kim Rajappan

Kim Rajappan

Oxford Heart Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 20 January 2025

Pok-Tin Tang and C. Fielder Camm contributed equally to this study.

ABSTRACT

Background

Permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation is a commonly performed procedure. Patients increasingly use the Internet for information on medical interventions. We aimed to assess the quality of videos discussing PPM implantation on YouTube for patient consumption.

Methods

YouTube was searched on October 19, 2022, for “PPM implantation” and “Pacemaker.” The first 100 results from each search were screened: all English language videos containing predominant discussion of transvenous PPMs were included; YouTube shorts and advertisements were excluded. Two authors independently assessed videos for information content based on criteria generated using established patient resources supplemented by expert consensus. Video reliability and quality were assessed using a novel scoring system.

Results

Thirty-three videos with a cumulative total of 5 864 488 views were included. No video contained all essential information criteria. The average number of essential criteria covered was 8/32 (standard deviation 4.8). Peri-operative management was, particularly, poorly covered: no item relating to preoperative management or postoperative care was covered by more than 40% of videos. None of the videos fulfilled all quality criteria, with a median score of 7.5/13 (interquartile range 6.5–8). Videos performed, particularly, poorly on providing balanced messages, creator disclosures, attribution of source content, and indicating when videos were made.

Conclusion

YouTube videos of PPM implantation do not contain sufficient information to allow patients to gain an appropriate understanding of this procedure. Furthermore, the information presented is of insufficient quality to support decision-making. There is a need for a professionally regulated, comprehensive audiovisual patient resource on PPM implantation.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.