Examining understandability, information quality, and presence of misinformation in popular YouTube videos on sleep compared to expert-led videos.

The Internet is a common source of sleep information but may be subject to commercial bias and misinformation. We compared the understandability, information quality, and presence of misinformation of popular YouTube videos on sleep to videos with credible experts. We identified the most popular YouTube videos on sleep/insomnia and 5 videos from experts. Videos were assessed for understanding and clarity using validated instruments. Misinformation and commercial bias were identified by consensus of sleep medicine experts. The most popular videos received, on average, 8.2 (± 2.2) million views; the expert-led videos received, on average, 0.3 (± 0.2) million views. Commercial bias was identified in 66.7% of popular videos and 0% of expert videos (P < .012). The popular videos featured more misinformation than expert videos (P < .001). The popular videos about sleep/insomnia on YouTube featured misinformation and commercial bias. Future research may explore methods for disseminating evidence-based sleep information. CITATION: Robbins R, Epstein LJ, Iyer JM, et al. Examining understandability, information quality, and presence of misinformation in popular YouTube videos on sleep compared to expert-led videos. J Clin Sleep Med. 2023;19(5):991-994.

A Nationally Representative Survey Assessing Restorative Sleep in US Adults.

Restorative sleep is a commonly used term but a poorly defined construct. Few studies have assessed restorative sleep in nationally representative samples. We convened a panel of 7 expert physicians and researchers to evaluate and enhance available measures of restorative sleep. We then developed the revised Restorative Sleep Questionnaire (REST-Q), which comprises 9 items assessing feelings resulting from the prior sleep episode, each with 5-point Likert response scales. Finally, we assessed the prevalence of high, somewhat, and low REST-Q scores in a nationally representative sample of US adults (n= 1,055) and examined the relationship of REST-Q scores with other sleep and demographic characteristics. Pairwise correlations were performed between the REST-Q scores and other self-reported sleep measures. Weighted logistic regression analyses were conducted to compare scores on the REST-Q with demographic variables. The prevalence of higher REST-Q scores (4 or 5 on the Likert scale) was 28.1% in the nationally representative sample. REST-Q scores positively correlated with sleep quality (r=0.61) and sleep duration (r=0.32), and negatively correlated with both difficulty falling asleep (r=-0.40) and falling back asleep after waking (r=-0.41). Higher restorative sleep scores (indicating more feelings of restoration upon waking) were more common among those who were: ≥60 years of age (OR=4.20, 95%CI: 1.92-9.17); widowed (OR=2.35, 95%CI:1.01-5.42), and retired (OR=2.02, 95%CI:1.30-3.14). Higher restorative sleep scores were less frequent among those who were not working (OR=0.36, 95%CI: 0.10-1.00) and living in a household with two or more persons (OR=0.51,95%CI:0.29-0.87). Our findings suggest that the REST-Q may be useful for assessing restorative sleep.

A Health Communication Assessment of Web-based Obstructive Sleep Apnea Patient Education Materials.

Background: The current care pathway for screening, diagnosis, and treatment for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is often fragmented and heavily reliant on patient action, leading to delays and gaps in care, which disproportionately affect race and ethnic minorities. There is a need for well-designed, accessible patient education materials (PEMs) to improve OSA awareness and empower those at risk for the condition with the necessary knowledge and skills to adhere to treatment. Objective: Our study aimed to evaluate the understandability, accessibility, actionability, and readability of web-based PEMs designed for patients with OSA and their families and caregivers. Methods: We engaged patients with OSA, clinicians, and patient advocates (n = 11) to identify a list of web-based OSA PEMs from the media, medical centers, medical device companies, and health professional and patient advocacy organizations. Two trained coders scored the PEMs using validated health communication assessments, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Clear Communication Index (CCI; on a scale from 0 to 100%); the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT), which features subscales for understandability and actionability, each measured from 0 to 100%; and readability measures, including the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook and Flesch-Kincaid, which correspond to grade levels. Results: We identified 20 web-based PEMs, which included websites (n = 12, 60%), online flyers (n = 4, 20%), videos (n = 3, 15%), and one discussion board (n = 1, 5%). Scores on the CCI ranged from 21.4 to 85.7%. No PEMs met the CCI cutoff (90%). Scores on the PEMAT scales for understandability ranged from 37.5 to 100%. Scores on the PEMAT scales for actionability ranged from 0 to 100%. Fifteen percent of the PEMs met the PEMAT cutoff for understandability and actionability. Readability of the PEMs ranged from a 5th to a 15th-grade reading level, as scored by the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook and Flesch-Kincaid. Only one PEM (5%) met the recommended sixth-grade reading level. Conclusion: Our study found that the majority of commonly used web-based PEMs for OSA did not meet recommended standards for clear communication and health literacy demands. OSA practitioners and future research should consider health communication best practices to design PEMs that reduce the gap between materials and average patient health literacy.