Objective: To analyze the video sources, contents and quality of YouTube videos about the topic of medical professionalism.
Methods: A systematic search was accomplished on YouTube videos during the period between March 1, 2020 and March 27, 2020. The phrases as significant words used throughout YouTube web search were 'Professionalism in Medical Education', Professionalism in medicine', 'Professionalism of medical students', 'Professionalism in healthcare'. 'Teaching professionalism', 'Attributes of professionalism'. The basic information collected for each video included author's/publisher's name, total number of watchers, likes, dislikes and positive and undesirable remarks. The videos were categorized into educationally useful and useless established on the content, correctness of the knowledge and the advices. Different variables were measured and correlated for the data analysis.YouTube website was searched the using keywords 'Professionalism in Medical Education', Professionalism in medicine', 'Professionalism of medical students', 'Professionalism in healthcare'. 'Teaching professionalism', and 'Attributes of professionalism'.
Results: After 2 rounds of screening by the subject experts and critical analysis of all the 137 YouTube videos, only 41 (29.92%) were identified as pertinent to the subject matter, i.e., educational type. After on expert viewing these 41 videos established upon our pre-set inclusion/exclusion criteria, only 17 (41.46%) videos were found to be academically valuable in nature.
Conclusion: Medical professionalism multimedia videos uploaded by the healthcare specialists or organizations on YouTube provided reliable information for medical students, healthcare workers and other professional. We conclude that YouTube is a leading and free online source of videos meant for students or other healthcare workers yet the viewers need to be aware of the source prior to using it for training learning.
Methods: An online questionnaire survey method was used. Based on sample size calculation, a total of 1,508 UiTM staff and students from ten selected campuses of Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) were invited to participate in this survey. An up-to-date e-mail list of staff in the selected campuses was used as the sampling frame for the study, whereas the students were recruited from the official university student Facebook portal.
Results: A total of 788 respondents participated in this survey, 72.2% of them knew about facial candling, though only 35.4% had tried the treatment. Approximately one-fifth of respondents agreed that facial candling might treat AR. It was found that a higher number of users than nonusers agreed that facial candling was a traditional medicine (78.9% vs 55.0%); could be used on the face and ears (83.5% vs 45.4%); and could be self-administered at home (83.5 vs 45.4%). Interestingly, more than half of them were uncertain about its long-term effects and adverse reactions.
Conclusion: This study confirms the facial candling use among patients with AR although the percentage is low. The patients and general public need to be better informed about the use of facial candling in AR and its associated risks.