2021 © CD
Analysis of article to determine research methods used
| Id : | 2359 | |
Author : | Ming S.; Han J.; Li M.; Liu Y.; Xie K.; Lei B. | |
Title | TikTok and adolescent vision health: Content and information quality assessment of the top short videos related to myopia |
|
| Reference : | Ming S.; Han J.; Li M.; Liu Y.; Xie K.; Lei B. TikTok and adolescent vision health: Content and information quality assessment of the top short videos related to myopia,Frontiers in Public Health 10 |
|
| Link to article | https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85146384927&doi=10.3389%2ffpubh.2022.1068582&partnerID=40&md5=1e24a64d054cc6151663c602fea11b16 |
|
| Abstract | Background: Despite the increasing recognition of the public health value of social media platforms, TikTok short videos focusing on adolescent vision health have not received much attention. We aimed to evaluate the content, sources, and information quality of myopia-related videos on TikTok. Methods: The top 200 most-liked myopia-related videos on the Chinese version of TikTok were queried and screened on March 12, 2022. The descriptive characteristics, contents, and sources of the selected 168 videos were obtained, and their overall quality, reliability, understandability, and actionability were assessed using the validated scoring instruments DISCERN and PEMAT-A/V. Results: Medical professionals were the main source (45.8%, 77/168) of videos. Misinformation (10.1%, 17/168) was mainly attributable to for-profit organizations (20%, 3/15) and individual non-medical users (31.3%, 10/32). However, their videos enjoyed the highest numbers of “likes,” “comments,” and “shares” (P < 0.05). The mean reliability and overall quality regarding treatment choice were (2.5 ± 0.5) and (3.1 ± 0.9), respectively. Videos on TikTok showed relatively high understandability (84.7%) and moderate actionability (74.9%). Video producers tended to partly or fully provide information regarding management (81.5%, 137/168) and outcome (82.1%, 138/168), and to ignore or only slightly mention content related to definition (86.9%, 146/169) and signs (82.1%, 138/168). The five video sources showed significant differences in the prevalence of misleading information (P < 0.001), publication reliability (P < 0.001), overall quality (P = 0.039), content score (P = 0.019), and understandability (P = 0.024). Conclusion: Considering the moderate-to-poor reliability and variable quality across video sources, the substantial myopia-related content on TikTok should be treated with caution. Nevertheless, TikTok videos may serve as a surrogate or supplement for information dissemination if providers can ensure more comprehensive and accurate content. Copyright © 2023 Ming, Han, Li, Liu, Xie and Lei. |
|
2021 © CD