Table 3.
DISCERN instrument Section 1 and Section 3 (A) and Global Quality Score (B) of 144 videos recorded on the 25th of February 2021
| Overall | Public health institutions 53 (36.8%) | Alternative medicine channels 32 (22.2%) | Nonacademic hospitals 19 (13.2%) | Academic hospitals 18 (12.5%) | Others 12 (8.3%) | Individuals 10 (6.9%) | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| a. DISCERN Instrument – Section 1 & Section 3 | ||||||||
| 1.Are the aims clear? | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | < .001 |
| 2.Does it achieve its aims? | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2.5 | < .001 |
| 3.Is it relevant? | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | < .001 |
| 4.Is it clear what sources were used to compile the publication? | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | .001 |
| 5.Is it clear when the information used or reported was produced? | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | .1 |
| 6.Is it balanced and unbiased? | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2.5 | < .001 |
| 7.Does it provide details of additional sources of support and information? | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2.5 | < .01 |
| 8.Does it refer to areas of uncertainty? | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2.5 | 2 | .06 |
| 16.Based on the answer to all the above questions, rate overall quality of the publication | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2.5 | < .01 |
| b. Global Quality Score | ||||||||
| 1.Poor quality | 12 (8.3) | 3 (5.7) | 2 (6.2) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 3 (25.0) | 4 (40.0) | < .001 |
| 2.Partially poor quality | 21 (14.6) | 11 (20.8) | 4 (12.5) | 0 (0) | 3 (16.7) | 1 (8.3) | 2 (20.0) | < .001 |
| 3.Moderate quality | 33 (22.9) | 11 (20.8) | 8 (25.0) | 3 (15.8) | 3 (16.7) | 6 (50.0) | 2 (20.0) | < .001 |
| 4.Partially good quality | 44 (30.6) | 13 (24.5) | 9 (28.1) | 13 (68.4) | 7 (38.9) | 1 (8.3) | 1 (10.0) | < .001 |
| 5.Excellent quality | 34 (23.6) | 15 (28.3) | 9 (28.1) | 3 (15.8) | 5 (27.8) | 1 (8.3) | 1 (10.0) | < .001 |