ArticleBMC public health2026
Assessing the quality and usefulness of smoking cessation related short videos on TikTok and Bilibili: a content analysis study in China.
Article in BMC public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Alcohol-related health information on Chinese short-video platforms: a cross-sectional content analysis of Douyin and Bilibili.Scientific reports · 2026Article
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
Abstract
backgroundSmoking remains a leading cause of preventable morbidity and mortality worldwide, and short-video platforms have increasingly become influential channels for disseminating smoking cessation–related information to the public. TikTok and Bilibili are two major short-video platforms with large user bases and distinct characteristics, exerting considerable influence on health perceptions, particularly among younger populations. However, due to their open nature and limited quality control, the quality and reliability of smoking cessation–related content vary substantially, with some videos containing inaccurate or misleading information, posing a public health challenge.
objectiveThis study aimed to systematically evaluate the quality and usefulness of smoking cessation–related videos on TikTok and Bilibili and to assess whether these platforms serve as valuable resources for smokers attempting to quit.
methodsIn January, 2024, a search was conducted on TikTok and Bilibili using the keywords “quit smoking (戒烟)” and “how to quit smoking yourself (如何自己戒烟).” Four independent reviewers assessed 400 videos using a standardized coding framework. Video quality and content were evaluated using global quality score (GQS), Usefulness Score (US) and Message Appeals (MA).
resultsTikTok videos showed higher levels of user engagement than those on Bilibili; however, no statistically significant differences were observed between the two platforms in Global Quality Score (GQS) or Usefulness Score (US). Most videos received a GQS of 3 (Bilibili: 56.5%; TikTok: 55.5%) and were rated as slightly useful, with fear appeals being the most commonly used message strategy. Videos produced by health professionals and institutions demonstrated higher quality and usefulness. Correlation analyses revealed distinct platform-specific patterns: on TikTok, video duration and time-normalized engagement indicators (daily video likes, daily video comments, daily video saves, and daily video shares) were positively associated with GQS, US, and message appeal, whereas on Bilibili, engagement indicators showed weak or negative associations with video quality.
conclusionsThere remains substantial room for improvement in the overall quality of smoking cessation–related short videos on both platforms. Greater involvement of health and communication professionals, as well as relevant institutions, may help enhance content quality. Achieving an appropriate balance between scientific accuracy and public appeal is essential for maximizing the effectiveness of short videos as smoking cessation health education tools.
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.