ArticleBMC public health2024
Users' experience with health-related content on YouTube: an exploratory study.
Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
64 citing papers in PubMed.
- YouTube as a source for clavicle fracture education: a quality, comprehensibility, and reliability assessment.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2026Article
- YouTube, TikTok, and Bilibili as sources of medical information on lumbar spinal stenosis: A cross-sectional content analysis study.Medicine · 2026Article
- Quality, Reliability, and Viewer Engagement of YouTube Videos on Esophageal Cancer: A Cross-Sectional Study.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Dental implant complications on YouTube™: an evaluation of video informativeness.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Fear of rabies and post-bite psychological stress: a qualitative study of YouTube comments from India.Tropical medicine and health · 2026Article
- Educational quality and viewer engagement of Youtube videos on ceramic implants: a cross-sectional study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Quality and reliability of anxiety disorder-related short videos on TikTok and Bilibili: A cross-sectional study.Medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluating the quality, reliability and readability of digital and artificial intelligence resources for adults with cancer who have significant caregiving responsibilities for children.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Evaluating the content quality and trustworthiness of snakebite envenomation videos on social media platforms: insights from TikTok and Bilibili.Tropical medicine and health · 2026Article
- Network Influence vs. Credibility in YouTube Sleep-Health Communication.Public health challenges · 2026Article
- Self-Reported Health Outcomes in Metabolic Health YouTube Comments: Cross-Sectional Study and Rule-Based Natural Language Processing Framework Development and Validation.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Observational
- Reliability and quality of cognitive impairment educational content on Douyin and Bilibili: A cross-sectional content analysis.Medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- YouTube as a tool for core stability exercise training a content evaluation study.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Content, quality, and reliability of gout-related videos on TikTok and Bilibili: A cross-sectional study.Medicine · 2026Article
- Quality and reliability of YouTube videos on breast engorgement.International breastfeeding journal · 2026Article
- Bilibili and TikTok as sources of information on atrophic gastritis and the quality of their content.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Quality and reliability of hyperlipidemia-related short videos on mainstream social media platforms: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Evaluating YouTube content on appendicitis: a comparative analysis of Arabic and English videos in terms of quality.Scientific reports · 2026Article
4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study focuses on health-related content (HRC) on YouTube and addresses the issue of misinformation on this platform. While previous research centered on content evaluations by experts, this study takes a user-centered approach and aims to explore users' experiences with and perceptions of HRC videos and to establish links between these perceptions and some socio-demographic characteristics including age, gender, profession, and educational level.
methodsA quantitative research design was used in the study. 3,000 YouTube users responded to a 35-item anonymous questionnaire to collect information about the content they watch toward decision-making, their perceptions of the usefulness and bias of this content, what they identify as quality indicators for HRC, and what they recommend to improve the quality of such content on YouTube. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, frequency, and correlation analyses.
resultsThe results reveal that 87.6 percent (n=2630) of the participants watch HRC on YouTube, and 84.7 percent (n=2542) make decisions based on what they watch. Exercise and bodybuilding videos are the most popular, with over half of the participants watching them. 40 percent of the users watch YouTube videos to decide whether to consult a doctor or adopt specific health-related practices. In contrast to evaluations by experts in previous studies, most respondents perceive HRC videos on YouTube as useful and do not find connections between video quality and surface features like the number of views and likes. Weak or no correlations were observed between the perceived usefulness of HRC videos and age, gender, profession, or educational level. Participants' recommendations for enhancing HRC quality align with previous research findings.
conclusionsUsers turn to YouTube not only for health information but also as a decision-making tool. Combined with their generally positive attitudes towards content quality on this platform, this can have significant consequences for their health. Follow-up studies are needed to get more insights into decision-making behaviors and how users assess their decisions in retrospect.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.