International Ophthalmology

, Volume 38, Issue 5, pp 1941–1945 | Cite as

YouTube videos in the English language as a patient education resource for cataract surgery

  • Steven S. Bae
  • Stephanie BaxterEmail author
Original Paper



To assess the quality of the content of YouTube videos for cataract surgery patient education.


Hotel Dieu Hospital, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.


Observational study.


“Cataract surgery,” “cataract surgery for patients,” and “cataract surgery patient education” were used as search terms. The first two pages of search results were reviewed. Descriptive statistics such as video length and view count were obtained. Two cataract surgeons devised 14 criteria important for educating patients about the procedure. Videos were analyzed based on the presence or absence of these criteria. Videos were also assessed for whether they had a primary commercial intent.


Seventy-two videos were analyzed after excluding 48 videos that were duplicate, irrelevant, or not in English. The majority of videos came from a medical professional (71%) and many depicted a real cataract surgery procedure (43%). Twenty-one percent of the videos had a primary commercial intent to promote a practice or product. Out of a total possible 14 points, the mean number of usefulness criteria satisfied was only 2.28 ± 1.80. There was no significant difference in view count between the most useful videos and other videos (p = 0.94). Videos from medical organizations such as the National Health Service were more useful (p < 0.0001).


Cataract surgery videos are popular on YouTube, but most are not adequately educational. Patients may be receiving biased information from videos created with primary commercial intent. Physicians should be aware of the type of information patients may be accessing on YouTube.


Cataract surgery Patient education YouTube Online Video education 



No sources of funding were received for this study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent–licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge, or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. Ethics approval is not required for this type of study.

Informed consent

Informed consent was not required for this study.


  1. 1.
    Diaz A, Griffith RA, Ng JJ, Reinert SE, Friedmann PE, Moulton AW (2002) Patients’ use of the internet for medical information. J Gen Intern Med 17:180–185CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schein OD, Cassard SD, Tielsch JM, Gower EW (2012) Cataract surgery among medicare beneficiaries. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 19(5):257–264CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Williams AM, Muir KW, Rosdahi JA (2016) Readability of patient education materials in ophthalmology: a single-institution study and systematic review. BMC Ophthalmol 16:133CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shukla AN, Daly MK, Legutko P (2012) Informed consent for cataract surgery: patient understanding of verbal, written, and videotaped information. J Cataract Refract Surg 38(1):80–84CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pager CK (2005) Randomised controlled trial for preoperative information to improve satisfaction with cataract surgery. Br J Ophthalmol 89:10–13CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hickman SJ (2016) An evaluation of educational neurological eye movement disorder videos posted on internet video sharing sites. J Neuro-Ophthalmol 36:33–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guthrie G, Davies RM, Fleming CK, Browning AC (2014) YouTube as a source of information about retinitis pigmentosa. Eye 28:499–500CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Meyer CH, Stanzel BV, Moqaddem S, Brohlburg D (2012) Healthcare “apps” for smartphones: relief or toy for patients and the visual impaired? Ophthalmologe 109:21–29CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tahiri Joutei Hassani R, El Sanharawi M, Dupont-Monod S, Baudouin C (2013) Smartphones in ophthalmology. J Fr Ophthalmol 36:499–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lüchtenberg M, Kuhli-Hattenbach C, Sinangin Y, Ohrloff C, Schalnus R (2008) Accessibility of health information on the internet to the visually impaired user. Ophthalmologica 222:187–193CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of MedicineQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada
  2. 2.Department of OphthalmologyQueen’s University, Kingston Health Sciences CentreKingstonCanada

Personalised recommendations