Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38107983›Full record

ArticleDigital health

Clearness qualitative comparative analysis of the spread of TikTok health science knowledge popularization accounts.

Yu Tian, Shuaishuai Liu, Desheng Zhang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

3 authors.

Yu TianDepartment of Journalism and Communication, Wuhan Sports University, Wuhan, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0678-9431
Shuaishuai LiuDepartment of Physical Education, Wuhan Sports University, Wuhan, China.
Desheng ZhangDepartment of Journalism and Communication, Wuhan Sports University, Wuhan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This study analyzed the popularity of TikTok health knowledge popularization accounts with the objective of creating a template for accounts suited to widely disseminating information, thereby enhancing the public's access to health knowledge on a broader scale. Methods: This study is based on 40 Chinese TikTok short video accounts Results: Among the nine variables involved in the calculation, one reached 0.909091, demonstrating that the number of followers was both a necessary factor and a condition for the popularity of short health science video accounts. There were 16 paths in the complex solution with a consistency of 1, and their overall coverage reached 0.878788, indicating that approximately 87% of the cases could be explained. From the spread of the content and communication situation, professional medical knowledge, current hot topics, professionals, and serious issues were the most likely combinations for rapid spread. From the perspective of the central and edge paths, "likes" exceeding 100,000 and fans exceeding 1 million were essential combinations. Conclusions: The dissemination of medical knowledge has gained significant traction, especially with regard to trending and popular topics. When it comes to the tone of communication, a serious style proved effective in fostering what can be termed "hot communication." From the standpoint of central and peripheral paths, it is crucial that the number of likes in the past month and the total number of fans surpass 100,000 and one million, respectively.

Indexed as

Health knowledgepost-pandemic eraqualitative comparison analysisshort videoTikTok

Identifiers

PMID38107983
PMCPMC10722914

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.