ArticleBMC medical education2025
How to select high-quality health educational short videos on social media? insights from youtube and douyin.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quality and reliability of anxiety disorder-related short videos on TikTok and Bilibili: A cross-sectional study.Medicine · 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
- Quality, reliability, and engagement of COPD-related videos on Chinese short-form video platforms: a cross-sectional content analysis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Assessing the reliability and quality of avascular necrosis of the femoral head content on social media: a cross-sectional content analysis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The quality and reliability of endometrial cancer-related videos on social short video platforms: a cross-sectional study.BMC women's health · 2026Article
- Do likes reflect quality? Engagement metrics and information reliability of robotic surgery short videos.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Quality, reliability, and transparency of late-life depression videos on Chinese social media: a cross-sectional study of Douyin, Rednotes, and BiliBili.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Public health communication and information quality of knee osteoarthritis-related short videos on TikTok, Kwai, and Bilibili: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- The quality and reliability of short videos about passive smoking on Bilibili and TikTok: A cross-sectional study.Tobacco induced diseases · 2026Article
- Evaluating the quality and reliability of radiation dermatitis related videos on Douyin and Bilibili: a cross-sectional analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Short-form video platforms as a source of ankylosing spondylitis information: a cross-sectional content analysis.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Quality and reliability of cardiac rehabilitation-related short Chinese videos on Douyin and Bilibili: a cross-sectional content analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Understanding how users identify health misinformation in short videos: an integrated analysis using PLS-SEM and fsQCA.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Article
- Assessment of the content and quality of palliative care videos on Chinese social media: A cross-sectional analysis.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSocial media has become a prominent source of health educational short videos (HESVs), yet their quality varies significantly, with many being inaccurate, incomplete, or poorly presented. Both healthcare professionals and the public lack clear criteria to evaluate HESVs quality when seeking health information on social media.
methodsThis study aims to evaluate the quality of HESVs on YouTube and Douyin based on Lasswell's 5 W communication model, and analyze the key factors for selecting high-quality HESVs. 200 videos were selected from YouTube and Douyin, respectively, between October 1 and November 30, 2024. Four independent reviewers analyzed the quality of HESVs using the Lasswell's Video Quality scale (LassVQ), modified DISCERN (M-DISCERN), and Global Quality Score (GQS). Comparative analysis, correlation analysis, and multiple linear regression were conducted by R 4.3.2 software.
resultsThe median video length was 189 s on YouTube and 88 s on Douyin. Douyin videos received significantly more likes (152190 vs. 116354, P < 0.001) and comments (10496 vs. 2726, P < 0.001) than YouTube videos. The median quality scores on YouTube and Douyin were: LassVQ (3.77 vs. 3.66, P = 0.0254), M-DISCERN (3.12 vs. 2.41, P < 0.001), and GQS (4 vs. 4, P = 0.906). Except for like volume on Douyin (r = 0.25-0.4, P < 0.001), no significant correlation between engagement metrics and the quality of HESVs. Multiple linear regression analysis revealed that key factors for high-quality video selection included visible reference information (YouTube: P = 0.002, Douyin: P = 0.014), necessary relevant information (Douyin: P < 0.001), clear dubbing, louder than background music (YouTube: P = 0.005, Douyin: P = 0.021), perception of knowledge acquisition (Douyin: P = 0.021), perception of action necessity (Douyin: P = 0.031), motivation to share (YouTube: P < 0.001), recommended as a trending video (Douyin: P = 0.033).
conclusionsThe quality of HESVs on YouTube and Douyin is inadequate. Users should prioritize trending HESVs produced by experts, with clear dubbing, visible references, essential content, and a clear sense of knowledge acquisition, action necessity, and sharing motivation.
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.