Back to all available

An assessment of accuracy and quality: sleep disorder information in short videos on major social platforms

psychiatry-and-psychology
public-health
mental-health

Abstract

Abstract:

Background: Short video platforms have become a primary source of health information. This study aimed to assess the quality and reliability of sleep disorder-related content on two major Chinese platforms, TikTok (Douyin) and Bilibili.

Methods: In this cross-sectional study, the top 100 videos for the search terms “sleep disorder” and “insomnia” were retrieved from each platform. After applying inclusion/exclusion criteria, 200 videos (100 per platform) were assessed by two blinded psychiatrists. Quality and reliability were evaluated using the Global Quality Scale (GQS) and a modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) tool. Video content completeness, source (experts, non-experts, science communicators, individual users), engagement metrics, and platform differences were analyzed using non-parametric statistical tests.

Results: Content analysis revealed a focus on symptoms (73% partial/14.5% full explanation), with significant gaps in foundational knowledge like epidemiology (56.5% no mention) and etiology (52% no mention). TikTok videos had significantly higher user engagement (likes, shares) and higher quality scores (median GQS: 3 vs. 2, p<0.001) than Bilibili videos. Videos published by medical experts (psychiatrists and other physicians) scored highest in quality (GQS) and reliability (mDISCERN). On both platforms, video quality scores showed positive correlations with user engagement metrics.

Conclusion: Sleep disorder information on short video platforms is often superficial, focusing on symptoms while lacking foundational knowledge. Platform characteristics significantly influence content quality and dissemination, with TikTok outperforming Bilibili in this sample. Content from medical professionals is of higher quality, underscoring their critical role in public health communication. The positive correlation between quality and engagement suggests users can recognize valuable content, highlighting the potential of these platforms for effective public health education if quality is prioritized.

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].