背景:YouTube已成为医疗保健信息的流行来源,到2021年,估计达到81%的成年人;美国约35%的成年人使用互联网自我诊断疾病。因此,公共卫生研究人员正在将YouTube数据纳入他们的研究中,但是使用社交媒体数据的研究伦理最佳实践指南,比如YouTube,不清楚。
目的:本研究旨在描述使用YouTube数据实施的公共卫生研究的研究伦理方法。
方法:我们对PubMed中的文章进行了系统回顾,Socindex,WebofScience,和PsycINFO遵循PRISMA(系统审查和荟萃分析的首选报告项目)指南。有资格被包括在内,研究需要在2006年1月1日至2019年10月31日之间以英文在同行评审的期刊上发表,并包括对公开的YouTube健康或公共卫生主题数据的分析;使用主要数据收集的研究,例如使用YouTube进行研究招募,干预措施,或传播评估,不包括在内。我们提取了关于用户识别信息存在的数据,机构审查委员会(IRB)审查,和知情同意程序,以及研究课题和方法论。
结果:这篇综述包括来自88种期刊的119篇文章。研究的最常见的健康和公共卫生主题是慢性病(44/119,37%),心理健康和物质使用(26/119,21.8%),和传染病(20/119,16.8%)。大多数(82/119,68.9%)的文章没有提到道德考虑或指出该研究不符合人类参与者研究的定义(16/119,13.4%)。在寻求IRB审查的人中(15/119,12.6%),15人中有12人(80%)被确定为不符合人类参与者研究的定义,因此免于IRB审查,15人中有3人(20%)获得IRB批准。3项IRB批准的研究均未包含识别信息;伦理委员会明确告知其中一项研究不包含识别信息。只有一项研究征求了YouTube用户的知情同意。119条,33(27.7%)包含有关内容创建者或视频评论者的识别信息,其中之一试图通过不包括用户信息来匿名化直接报价。
结论:鉴于实践中的变化,社交媒体研究需要关于研究伦理的具体指导方针,特别是在使用识别信息时匿名和寻求同意。
背景:PROSPEROCRD42020148170;https://www.crd.约克。AC.uk/prospro/display_record.php?RecordID=148170。
YouTube has become a popular source of health care information, reaching an estimated 81% of adults in 2021; approximately 35% of adults in the United States have used the internet to self-diagnose a condition. Public health researchers are therefore incorporating YouTube data into their research, but guidelines for best practices around research ethics using social media data, such as YouTube, are unclear.
This study aims to describe approaches to research ethics for public health research implemented using YouTube data.
We implemented a systematic
review of articles found in PubMed, SocINDEX, Web of Science, and PsycINFO following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. To be eligible to be included, studies needed to be published in peer-reviewed journals in English between January 1, 2006, and October 31, 2019, and include analyses on publicly available YouTube data on health or public health topics; studies using primary data collection, such as using YouTube for study recruitment, interventions, or dissemination evaluations, were not included. We extracted data on the presence of user identifying information, institutional
review board (IRB)
review, and informed consent processes, as well as research topic and methodology.
This
review includes 119 articles from 88 journals. The most common health and public health topics studied were in the categories of chronic diseases (44/119, 37%), mental health and substance use (26/119, 21.8%), and infectious diseases (20/119, 16.8%). The majority (82/119, 68.9%) of articles made no mention of ethical considerations or stated that the study did not meet the definition of human participant research (16/119, 13.4%). Of those that sought IRB
review (15/119, 12.6%), 12 out of 15 (80%) were determined to not meet the definition of human participant research and were therefore exempt from IRB
review, and 3 out of 15 (20%) received IRB approval. None of the 3 IRB-approved studies contained identifying information; one was explicitly told not to include identifying information by their ethics committee. Only 1 study sought informed consent from YouTube users. Of 119 articles, 33 (27.7%) contained identifying information about content creators or video commenters, one of which attempted to anonymize direct quotes by not including user information.
Given the variation in practice, concrete guidelines on research ethics for social media research are needed, especially around anonymizing and seeking consent when using identifying information.
PROSPERO CRD42020148170; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=148170.