Researchers from Süleyman Demirel University and KTO Karatay University in Turkey conducted a cross-sectional content analysis of YouTube exercise videos designed specifically for people with lung cancer. Their findings, published in the Journal of Cancer Survivorship, reveal a landscape of variable reliability and inconsistent exercise-specific quality, with notable weaknesses in how exercises are demonstrated and explained.

The team screened 2,158 videos on YouTube and applied strict eligibility criteria, ultimately including just 24 videos in the final analysis. Two physiotherapists independently rated each video using validated instruments: the modified DISCERN scale for information reliability, the Global Quality Scale for overall quality, and the JAMA benchmark criteria for transparency and accountability. They also rated exercise-specific parameters such as safety, progression and adaptability, and demonstration and instruction quality on a Likert scale.

According to the Global Quality Scale, 54.2 percent of the videos were classified as high quality, while 20.8 percent were rated as low quality. Scores on the Global Quality Scale correlated positively with both DISCERN and JAMA scores, and DISCERN scores also correlated positively with JAMA scores, all with p values below 0.05. Inter-rater agreement between the two physiotherapists was high, with Cohen’s kappa values of 0.77 for DISCERN, 0.72 for the Global Quality Scale, and 0.68 for JAMA.

However, the study uncovered a striking disconnect between what makes a video technically good and what makes it popular. Exercise-quality parameters were not correlated with daily video views or likes, suggesting that the algorithm and audience engagement metrics do not necessarily reward the most reliable or pedagogically sound content. A video with polished production values and a large following may still fall short when it comes to safely adapting exercises for someone recovering from lung surgery or coping with treatment-related fatigue.

The researchers identified particular limitations in exercise demonstrations and instructions, even among videos that scored well on the Global Quality Scale. This matters because lung cancer survivors often face unique physiological challenges, including reduced lung capacity, breathlessness, and fatigue, that require careful exercise progression and modification. A video that fails to demonstrate proper form or explain how to adapt a movement could pose safety risks for this vulnerable population.

YouTube has become a readily accessible source of health information, and previous research has examined its reliability across a wide range of conditions, from ankylosing spondylitis exercises to pulmonary rehabilitation and breast self-examination. The platform hosts content from healthcare professionals, cancer organizations, and individual creators, but the quality of what surfaces in search results can vary dramatically. The new study adds to a growing literature suggesting that patients and clinicians should approach online video content with critical scrutiny.

The authors conclude that while YouTube provides readily accessible exercise information for lung cancer survivors, the reliability and quality of available videos vary, underscoring the need for guidance toward evidence-based resources. They suggest that healthcare professionals, cancer care teams, and patient organizations could play a key role in curating and recommending high-quality content, rather than leaving patients to navigate the platform alone.

For clinicians, the findings highlight the importance of incorporating conversations about online health information-seeking into routine cancer care. Rather than dismissing YouTube outright, oncologists, physiotherapists, and nurses could direct patients toward vetted resources or even create and upload their own evidence-based exercise content. As digital platforms continue to shape how patients learn about their own recovery, the gap between what is popular and what is reliable remains a critical challenge for cancer survivorship care.

Understanding why the study’s instruments were chosen helps clarify what the findings actually mean. The DISCERN instrument was originally developed in the late 1990s as a tool for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices, and its modified version has since been adapted for video content. The JAMA benchmark criteria, meanwhile, trace back to a landmark 1997 editorial urging readers and viewers of online medical information to beware, and they focus on whether content discloses authorship, attribution, currency, and potential conflicts of interest. The Global Quality Scale offers a broader five-point judgment of overall informational quality. Applying all three instruments to the same set of videos, and finding that their scores correlate positively with one another, gives some confidence that the ratings capture a genuine underlying property of the content rather than the idiosyncratic preferences of individual raters.

The high inter-rater agreement reported in the study is itself noteworthy. Cohen’s kappa is a statistic that corrects for agreement occurring by chance, and values above 0.60 are generally considered substantial in health research. With kappa values ranging from 0.68 to 0.77 across the three main instruments, the two physiotherapists who independently evaluated the videos appear to have applied the rating criteria in a consistent and reproducible manner. This strengthens the internal validity of the analysis, even though the small final sample of 24 videos means the findings should be interpreted as a snapshot of a narrow slice of YouTube content rather than a definitive audit of the entire platform.

The screening funnel also deserves attention. Of the 2,158 videos initially identified, only 24 met the final eligibility criteria, a yield of roughly one percent. This attrition reflects the strict inclusion requirements the researchers applied, likely involving language restrictions, content relevance to lung cancer specifically, and the exclusion of duplicates or purely promotional material. The small number of eligible videos is itself a finding: it suggests that despite the enormous volume of exercise content on YouTube, material genuinely tailored to people living with lung cancer is comparatively scarce. Patients searching for guidance may therefore encounter a sea of generic fitness videos before finding anything designed with their specific physiological constraints in mind.

The disconnect between engagement metrics and exercise-specific quality has broader implications for how patients find health content online. Recommendation algorithms on video platforms typically prioritize watch time, click-through behavior, and user interactions such as likes and shares. None of these signals encode whether an exercise demonstration is safe for someone with reduced lung capacity or whether instructions adequately address progression for a person recovering from thoracic surgery. As a result, the videos that rise to the top of search results and recommendation feeds may owe their visibility to production polish, thumbnail appeal, or channel popularity rather than clinical soundness. This creates a structural problem that individual critical thinking alone cannot easily solve.

Exercise oncology research has increasingly emphasized that physical activity for cancer survivors should follow established clinical pathways, beginning with screening and referral to personalized interventions rather than generic advice. For lung cancer specifically, the physiological burden of the disease and its treatments, including surgical resection of lung parenchyma, radiotherapy, and systemic therapies, means that exercise prescriptions often require careful individualization. Videos that present exercises without safety screening considerations, without options for adaptation, and without clear instruction on technique may inadvertently encourage survivors to attempt movements that exceed their current capacity. The study’s finding that demonstration and instruction were the weakest exercise-specific parameters suggests this is precisely where online content falls short.

The study also sits within a wider body of literature evaluating YouTube as a health information source across many conditions. Prior content analyses have examined videos on ankylosing spondylitis exercises, rotator cuff tears, carpal tunnel syndrome, meniscus tear rehabilitation, pulmonary rehabilitation, and sarcopenia prevention, among other topics. A recurring pattern across these studies is that overall quality is variable and that popularity metrics correlate poorly with reliability assessments. The lung cancer findings are consistent with this pattern, suggesting the problem is systemic to the platform’s content ecosystem rather than specific to any one clinical area.

For patients and caregivers, the practical takeaway is not that YouTube should be avoided altogether, but that its content should be approached with a structured form of skepticism. Viewers can ask simple questions drawn from the criteria used in the study: Who created this video, and are their credentials stated? Is the information current? Are sources or guidelines cited? Does the demonstration explain how to modify the exercise if it causes breathlessness or pain? Videos that answer these questions transparently are more likely to align with the higher-scoring content identified in the analysis.

For healthcare systems, the findings point toward an opportunity rather than merely a deficit. If high-quality, lung cancer-specific exercise content is scarce and hard to find, cancer centers, professional physiotherapy associations, and patient advocacy organizations are well positioned to fill the gap by producing and promoting vetted video resources. Embedding links to such content in survivorship care plans, and training clinicians to discuss online information-seeking during routine consultations, could help close the distance between what patients watch and what the evidence supports. As digital health content continues to expand, ensuring that the most accessible resources are also the most trustworthy remains a shared responsibility of clinicians, researchers, and the platforms themselves.

Subject of Research: Reliability and quality of YouTube exercise videos for people living with lung cancer: a cross-sectional content analysis

Article Title: Reliability and quality of YouTube exercise videos for people living with lung cancer: a cross-sectional content analysis

Article References: Ergan, M., Keskin, T., Ünüvar, B. S., & Başkurt, Z. (2026). Reliability and quality of YouTube exercise videos for people living with lung cancer: a cross-sectional content analysis. Journal of Cancer Survivorship. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-026-02144-9

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s11764-026-02144-9

Keywords: lung cancer, YouTube, exercise, reliability, cancer survivorship, digital health, quality, videos, people, living, lung, cancer