ArticleBMC palliative care2026
TikTok and Bilibili as sources of palliative care information: an analysis of quality and reliability.
Article in BMC palliative care, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe development and popularization of palliative care have garnered significant attention. Short-video platforms TikTok and Bilibili boast vast audiences, enabling users to readily access related information. However, the quality of palliative care content available on these platforms remains uncertain.
objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the quality and reliability of Chinese-language palliative care-related short videos on the TikTok and Bilibili video-sharing platforms.
methodsWe selected the top 100 Chinese-language palliative care videos from Bilibili and TikTok based on comprehensive rankings, categorizing them by source and content. Three scoring tools—Global Quality Score (GQS), JAMA, and modified mDISCERN—were used to evaluate video quality and reliability.
resultsThe 200 videos included in this study primarily originated from five sources: individual creators (n = 79, 39.5%), healthcare practitioners (n = 64, 32%), news media (n = 28, 14%), for-profit organizations (n = 15, 7.5%), and non-profit organizations (n = 14, 7%). Based on content, videos were categorized into six themes: relevant concepts (n = 98, 49%), practice examples (n = 85, 42.5%), life education (n = 74, 37%), specific service details (n = 71, 35.5%), industry status (n = 45, 22.5%), and future outlook (n = 25, 12.5%). Regarding video quality and reliability, palliative care-related content on TikTok and Bilibili demonstrated lower quality. TikTok’s median GQS, JAMA, and mDISCERN scores were 2.00, 1.00, and 2.00, respectively, while Bilibili’s median scores for these metrics were 3.00, 2.00, and 2.00. Videos posted by healthcare professionals scored significantly higher on GQS (p < 0.05), mDISCERN (p < 0.01), and JAMA (p < 0.05) compared to non-professionals. Likes, shares, and comments showed a weak positive correlation with video quality, while likes and comments exhibited a weak negative correlation with video duration.
conclusionThis study found that the number of Chinese-language palliative care videos on TikTok and Bilibili is limited, with generally low quality and reliability. Videos posted by healthcare professionals demonstrated higher quality and reliability. Content-wise, these videos effectively conveyed basic palliative care concepts to the public, aiding in the dissemination of life education. Future efforts should encourage healthcare professionals to produce more high-quality video content to promote public awareness of palliative care.
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.