Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.3961/jpmph.16.107

Zika Virus on YouTube: An Analysis of English-language Video Content by Source  

Basch, Corey H. (Department of Public Health, William Paterson University College of Science and Health)
Fung, Isaac Chun-Hai (Department of Epidemiology and Environmental Health Sciences, Jiann-Ping Hsu College of Public Health, Georgia Southern University)
Hammond, Rodney N. (Department of Public Health, William Paterson University College of Science and Health)
Blankenship, Elizabeth B. (Department of Epidemiology and Environmental Health Sciences, Jiann-Ping Hsu College of Public Health, Georgia Southern University)
Tse, Zion Tsz Ho (College of Engineering, The University of Georgia)
Fu, King-Wa (Journalism and Media Studies Centre, The University of Hong Kong)
Ip, Patrick (Department of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong)
Basch, Charles E. (Department of Health and Behavior Studies, Teachers College, Columbia University)
Publication Information
Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health / v.50, no.2, 2017 , pp. 133-140 More about this Journal
Abstract
Objectives: The purpose of this study was to describe the source, length, number of views, and content of the most widely viewed Zika virus (ZIKV)-related YouTube videos. We hypothesized that ZIKV-related videos uploaded by different sources contained different content. Methods: The 100 most viewed English ZIKV-related videos were manually coded and analyzed statistically. Results: Among the 100 videos, there were 43 consumer-generated videos, 38 Internet-based news videos, 15 TV-based news videos, and 4 professional videos. Internet news sources captured over two-thirds of the total of 8 894 505 views. Compared with consumer-generated videos, Internet-based news videos were more likely to mention the impact of ZIKV on babies (odds ratio [OR], 6.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.64 to 23.76), the number of cases in Latin America (OR, 5.63; 95% CI, 1.47 to 21.52); and ZIKV in Africa (OR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.04 to 6.31). Compared with consumer-generated videos, TV-based news videos were more likely to express anxiety or fear of catching ZIKV (OR, 6.67; 95% CI, 1.36 to 32.70); to highlight fear of ZIKV among members of the public (OR, 7.45; 95% CI, 1.20 to 46.16); and to discuss avoiding pregnancy (OR, 3.88; 95% CI, 1.13 to 13.25). Conclusions: Public health agencies should establish a larger presence on YouTube to reach more people with evidence-based information about ZIKV.
Keywords
Zika virus; Health communication; Internet; Social media;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Rasmussen SA, Jamieson DJ, Honein MA, Petersen LR. Zika virus and birth defects--reviewing the evidence for causality. N Engl J Med 2016;374(20):1981-1987.   DOI
2 European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Rapid risk assessment: Zika virus disease epidemic; 2016 [cited 2016 Jun 21]. Available from: http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/zika%20virus%20rapid%20risk%20assessment%2010-05-2016.pdf.
3 Fung IC, Duke CH, Finch KC, Snook KR, Tseng PL, Hernandez AC, et al. Ebola virus disease and social media: a systematic review. Am J Infect Control 2016;44(12):1660-1671.   DOI
4 Glowacki EM, Lazard AJ, Wilcox GB, Mackert M, Bernhardt JM. Identifying the public's concerns and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's reactions during a health crisis: an analysis of a Zika live Twitter chat. Am J Infect Control 2016;44(12):1709-1711.   DOI
5 Fu KW, Liang H, Saroha N, Tse ZT, Ip P, Fung IC. How people react to Zika virus outbreaks on Twitter? A computational content analysis. Am J Infect Control 2016;44(12):1700-1702.   DOI
6 Southwell BG, Dolina S, Jimenez-Magdaleno K, Squiers LB, Kelly BJ. Zika virus-related news coverage and online behavior, United States, Guatemala, and Brazil. Emerg Infect Dis 2016;22(7):1320-1321.   DOI
7 Sharma M, Yadav K, Yadav N, Ferdinand KC. Zika virus pandemic-analysis of Facebook as a social media health information platform. Am J Infect Control 2017;45(3):301-302.   DOI
8 Houts PS, Doak CC, Doak LG, Loscalzo MJ. The role of pictures in improving health communication: a review of research on attention, comprehension, recall, and adherence. Patient Educ Couns 2006;61(2):173-190.   DOI
9 Statista. Statistics and facts about YouTube; 2016 [2016 Jun 21]. Available from: http://www.statista.com/topics/2019/youtube/.
10 Basch CH, Basch CE, Ruggles KV, Hammond R. Coverage of the Ebola virus disease epidemic on YouTube. Disaster Med Public Health Prep 2015;9(5):531-535.   DOI
11 Towers S, Afzal S, Bernal G, Bliss N, Brown S, Espinoza B, et al. Mass media and the contagion of fear: the case of Ebola in America. PLoS One 2015;10(6):e0129179.   DOI
12 Wong WH, Li SL, Fu KW, Tinsley H, Chow CB, Ip P. The importance of online resources for parents of children with special needs in Hong Kong: south China's experience. J Health Med Inform 2015;6:192.
13 Pathak R, Poudel DR, Karmacharya P, Pathak A, Aryal MR, Mahmood M, et al. YouTube as a source of information on Ebola virus disease. N Am J Med Sci 2015;7(7):306-309.   DOI
14 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Zika virus; 2016 [cited 2016 Jun 21]. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/zika/.
15 Bernhardt JM, Felter EM. Online pediatric information seeking among mothers of young children: results from a qualitative study using focus groups. J Med Internet Res 2004;6(1):e7.   DOI
16 Moorhead SA, Hazlett DE, Harrison L, Carroll JK, Irwin A, Hoving C. A new dimension of health care: systematic review of the uses, benefits, and limitations of social media for health communication. J Med Internet Res 2013;15(4):e85.   DOI
17 Fung IC, Tse ZT, Cheung CN, Miu AS, Fu KW. Ebola and the social media. Lancet 2014;384(9961):2207.
18 Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev 1977;84(2):191-215.   DOI
19 Ziman J. Not knowing, needing to know, and wanting to know. In: Lewenstein B, editor. When science meets the public. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science; 1992, p. 13-20.
20 Hulme M. Why we disagree about climate change: understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009, p. 217-221.