Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37601206›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2023

Public's preferences for health science popularization short videos in China: a discrete choice experiment.

Li Xiao, Hewei Min, Yibo Wu, Jieyu Zhang, Yan Ning, Long Long, Kaixiang Jia, Weilong Jing, Xinying Sun

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Li XiaoPublicity Division, Chinese Center for Health Education, Beijing, China.
Hewei MinSchool of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Yibo WuSchool of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Jieyu ZhangSchool of Public Administration, Hohai University, Nanjing, China.
Yan NingPublicity Division, Chinese Center for Health Education, Beijing, China.
Long LongSouthern Health, Wuhan, Hubei, China.
Kaixiang JiaSouthern Health, Wuhan, Hubei, China.
Weilong JingNational Center for Food Safety Risk Assessment, Beijing, China.
Xinying SunSchool of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Health science popularization short video disseminates health information to the public in an understandable way about health information. Objective: To investigate the preferences of Chinese residents for health science popularization short videos and provide suggestions for optimizing the production of short videos. Methods: An online survey of Chinese people was conducted using a self-administered questionnaire, and a discrete choice experiment (DCE) was used to explore the public's preferences for health science popularization short videos. Results: A total of 618 respondents were included, of which 306 (45.51%) were male and 312 (50.49%) were female, 271 (43.85%) were aged 18-25, 239 (38.67%) were aged 26-60, and 108 (17.48%) were aged 60 and above. Whether the video is charged or not (46.891%) and the account subject (28.806%) were both considered important. The results of the DCE revealed that the participants considered video free of charge as the most significant attribute of health science popularization short videos (OR 3.433, 95% CI 3.243-3.633). Overall, participants preferred and were more willing to pay for health science popularization short videos with a hospital account subject (OR 1.192, 95% CI 1.116-1.274), with the form of graphic narration (OR 1.062, 95% CI 1.003-1.126), free of charge (OR 3.433, 95% CI 3.243-3.633), with the content that satisfies their needs (very much needed: OR 1.253, 95% CI 95% CI 1.197-1.311; generally needed: OR 1.078, 95% CI 1.029-1.129), with platform certification (OR 1.041, 95% CI 1.011-1.073), without commercial advertisements (OR 1.048, 95% CI 1.018-1.080), with simple-to-understand content (OR 1.071, 95% CI 1.040-1.104), and with video content that evokes fear or dread of illness in the viewer (OR 1.046, 95% CI 1.015-1.078). Conclusion: Participants favor free health popularization short videos, which are hospital accounts, with content that is illustrated, understandable, meets their needs, and can serve as a warning. In the future, the production of health popularization short videos should focus on improving the diversity and relevance of video content, making it as easy to understand to achieve good science popularization effects.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorConsumer BehaviorConsumer Health InformationHealth CommunicationVideo RecordingAdolescentAdultAsian PeopleChinaFemaleHospitalsHumansMaleYoung Adultdiscrete choice experimenthealth communicationhealth popularizationpreferenceshort video

Identifiers

PMID37601206
PMCPMC10436607

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.