Back to all available

Videos on YouTube, Bilibili, and TikTok as sources of medical information on nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a cross-sectional content analysis study

oncology
public-health
science-and-medical-education

Abstract

Background. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is a common head and neck tumor. A significant amount of NPC-related content on video social media has not been peer-reviewed. This study aims to evaluate the information quality of NPC-related videos on YouTube, Bilibili, and TikTok.
M ethods. From October 1 to October 10, 2024, 600 NPC-related videos meeting the criteria were selected for evaluation: 200 from YouTube (154 uploaders), 200 from Bilibili (113 uploaders), and 200 from TikTok (66 uploaders). Video and creator characteristics were documented, and quality was assessed using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT), Video Information and Quality Index (VIQI), Global Quality Score (GQS), modified DISCERN (mDISCERN), and Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria.
R esults. TikTok videos showed the highest audience engagement. YouTube had more team-based accounts, while TikTok and Bilibili predominantly featured individual accounts, with many certified doctors on TikTok. On TikTok, “ solo narration ” videos were most common due to easier production. In contrast, YouTube and Bilibili offered a broader range of content, including TV programs, documentaries, and educational courses. About 19% Bilibili videos reposted from other platforms were deemed unoriginal. Video quality varied across platforms, with TikTok generally demonstrating superior quality. Professional uploaders produced higher-quality content on TikTok and Bilibili, while no significant difference was observed between professionals and non-professionals on YouTube. Spearman correlation analysis revealed few significant relationships between video quality and audience interaction.
C onclusion. Social media platforms can help disseminate knowledge about NPC to some extent. TikTok performed best in engagement and quality based on assessment tools. However, overall video quality across all platforms still requires improvement. We need more professional and interdisciplinary teams to enhance video quality. Content creators should prioritize certification, originality, and diversified video style. Platforms should optimize algorithms to promote high-quality health content to the public.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].