Back to all available

Educational content and information quality of recent Ozempic-titled YouTube videos: a cross-sectional infodemiology analysis of themes and quality indicators

diabetes-and-endocrinology
pharmacology
public-health
science-and-medical-education

Abstract

Background: Ozempic is widely discussed on social media, and YouTube videos may influence expectations about benefits, risks, and safe use. However, content quality varies, and popularity does not necessarily reflect educational value. The study aims to evaluate educational themes, information quality, reliability, title–content alignment, and usefulness of YouTube videos uploaded in 2025 with Ozempic in the title.

Methods: We performed a cross-sectional content analysis of 397 YouTube videos uploaded in 2025 with Ozempic in the title. Videos were categorized by duration as micro, short, standard, long, or extended. Outcomes included DISCERN-score, GQS-Score, JAMA benchmark criteria, TCCI score, usefulness score & engagement metrics. Theme coverage across eight educational domains was also compared.

Results: Among 397 videos, engagement increased with duration, with median views per day rising from 74.008 in micro-videos to 1018.681 in extended videos. Quality also improved with duration. Median DISCERN increased from 17.0 in micro videos to 30.0 in standard and extended videos, and median GQS increased from 1.0 in micro videos to 3.0 in standard, long, and extended videos. Title–content alignment improved, with TCCI ≥4 increasing from 24.7% in micro-videos to 70.0% in extended videos, and mean JAMA increased from 1.35-to-2.28. Educational themes were more common in longer videos, including the mechanism of action and safe use. Usefulness was modestly correlated with views/day.

Conclusions: In 2025, Ozempic-titled YouTube videos with a longer duration were associated with higher engagement, higher quality, and broader medication education. Transparency remained limited overall. Short videos may need clearer safety framing and stronger transparency cues.

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].