Credibility of health-related content on Chinese short-video platforms: A scoping review on accuracy,risks,and quality metrics

Abstract

Background

Short videos have emerged as a significant medium for disseminating health information. However, misleading content can lead to poor health decisions, undermining national efforts to enhance health knowledge and public health literacy.

Objective

This study aims to systematically evaluate the quality and reliability of health-related videos on Chinese short-video platforms and to offer insights for the regulation of digital health on a global scale.

Methods

A comprehensive search was conducted across the China Biology Medicine Database, PubMed, Wanfang, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and VIP databases for articles published between January 2021 and December 2024. Twenty-five articles meeting the inclusion criteria were included and analyzed to evaluate the quality and credibility of health-related short videos on Chinese platforms, as well as the correlation between the type of creator and video quality.

Results

Health-related videos created by healthcare professionals or institutions demonstrated higher reliability and accuracy. The DISCERN was the most commonly used tool in the evaluation of these videos. Overall, video quality was generally substandard, with the prevalence of inaccurate information ranging from 10.1% to 100% across various health topics.

Conclusions

This review identified substantial deficiencies in the accuracy of health information disseminated through Chinese short-video platforms. The presence of low-quality content has negative impact on public health decision-making. These findings align with evaluation of health-related videos on international platforms, such as YouTube and Instagram. Therefore, it is imperative to adopt comprehensive strategies, including content moderation, creator verification, and responsible algorithm management to improve video quality and ensure the public's access to reliable digital health information.

Keywords

Chinese social media short videos health information reliability evaluation

Introduction

The Internet and social media have become significant sources of healthcare information, with novel online health education technologies gaining widespread acceptance. According to a survey, approximately 80% of the global population engages with health-related content on social media platforms.¹ The availability of accurate online health information serves to enhance public health literacy and empowers individuals to exercise greater autonomy in health-related decision-making. For example, authoritative information disseminated via social media has been demonstrated to significantly promote hepatitis B virus screening and liver cancer prevention.² Additionally, it has been shown to improve glycemic control among diabetic patients, thereby enhancing their self-management capabilities and overall quality of life.³

Although social media has significantly enhanced the public's access to information, it has also facilitated the widespread dissemination of inaccurate and false health-related content. A study indicated that over 70% of individuals reported that information acquired from social media had influenced their health status.⁴ In a survey conducted by Rahila Iftikhar et al., 42.6% of patients discontinued treatment due to misleading online content.⁵ Waszak et al. examined health information across multiple platforms and discovered that approximately 40% of the content was identified as false or misleading.⁶ Similarly, Sommariva et al. analyzed social media posts concerning the Zika virus and found that more than half contained misinformation.⁷ Furthermore, a report evaluating videos related to gynecological cancers on TikTok revealed that the majority of such content was unreliable.^8,9 Previous studies have reported inaccuracies in health-related information across diverse topics on social media platforms, including nutrition (98%),¹⁰ attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (52%),¹¹ mask usage during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic (10.6%),¹² pediatric urological diseases (77.8%),¹³ prostate cancer (47%),¹⁴ and breast cancer (63.08%).¹⁵ Therefore, comprehensive understanding of the quality and credibility of different categories of health-related short videos is essential to improving the public's ability to discriminate online health information.

This review focused on the status of the quality and credibility of health science-related videos on Chinese short-video platforms. It provided an in-depth analysis of the potential threats to the public health security arising from the dissemination of distorted online health information and offered corresponding recommendations and strategies. The objective was to establish a robust theoretical foundation and practical guidance for the standardized dissemination of health science information on social media platforms, with the ultimate goal of enhancing public health literacy.

Methods

Literature search and inclusion criteria

A comprehensive search was conducted across literature databases most likely to contain studies on the quality and credibility of health science-related videos on social media, particularly in the fields of medicine, public health, and health education. The selected databases included China Biology Medicine Database (CBM), PubMed, Wanfang, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and VIP databases. The search strategy is based on four main selected keywords: “short videos,” “health,” “quality assessment,” and “reliability analysis.” Studies were selected based on inclusion criteria designed to identify articles relevant to the quality evaluation and credibility assessment of health information short videos.

The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) Publication date between 1 January 2021 and 31 December 2024; (2) The study explicitly focused on health science-related videos originating from Chinese short-video platforms; (3) The study included systematic quality assessment or credibility evaluation of the short video content, covering at least one of the following dimensions: accuracy and scientific validity of information, completeness of information, source credibility, objectivity and evidence support of content, or alignment with professional health communication or clinical guidelines. The exclusion criteria for the literature were as follows: (1) Duplicate publications; (2) Studies solely addressing media characteristics, user behavior, production strategies, social support, current trends, or influencing factors; (3) Studies lacking a clear framework or methodology for quality or credibility assessment.

Two reviewers independently screened the literature according to the above criteria. Discrepancies were initially resolved through discussion and consensus. If agreement could not be reached, a third senior researcher made the final decision based on the established criteria.

Evaluating methodologies

Bibliometric analysis and content analysis methods were employed to conduct a retrospective analysis of the basic information and research content of the included literature. Microsoft Excel was used to summarize key research information for each included study, including publication date, short-video platforms analyzed, specific health topics covered, sample size of short videos, quality assessment tools applied, extent of misinformation identified, and main findings. Radar charts, bar charts, and percentage stacked bar charts were generated using Origin software to analyze the engagement with health information short videos, the proportion of distorted information and the sources and quality of health science-related videos.

Result

Literature screening and basic characteristics

This study conducted a search among 2608 potentially relevant articles from databases including CBM, PubMed, Wanfang, CNKI and VIP using keywords such as “short videos,” “health,” “quality assessment,” and “reliability analysis.” After screening, 2583 articles were excluded based on the exclusion criteria, resulting in 25 eligible studies included in the final analysis (Figure 1). The included studies analyzed 4321 health-related short video samples totally, with a median sample size of 90 videos per study. All studies focused on Chinese social media platforms, covering platforms such as TikTok, Kuaishou, Weibo, Bilibili, Xiaohongshu, WeChat, and Jinri Toutiao, with TikTok being the most common platform across all studies and emerging as a core medium for disseminating health-related short videos. The research topics covered various health domains, including knowledge related to conditions such as osteoarthritis, breast cancer, stroke, nutrition, hypertension, diabetes, and inflammatory bowel disease, as well as health management topics such as adolescent vision health (Table 1).

Figure 1.

PRISMA flow diagram.

Table 1.

Key information on the included articles.

Authors (year)	Health information	Media platform	Data collection time	Sample size of videos	Assessment tools	Misinformation	Related results
Huang Ning⁴⁴ （2024）	Osteoarthritis	TikTok	23–30 July 2023	218	Goobie DISCERN	/	Health professionals provided the majority of the videos (66.51%). The total score of DISCERN was (49.53 ± 9.87), which was “fair” level, and the scores of health professionals were higher than those of other types of authors.
Ming Shuai³⁵ （2023）	Adolescent vision health	TikTok	12 March 2022	168	DISCERN PEMAT-A/V	10.1% of misinformation	Videos were mostly produced by doctors (45.8%). PEMAT-A/V found that TikTok videos had relatively high understandability (84.7%) and moderate actionability (74.9%). Based on the reliability DISCERN score, the overall scores were (19.8 ± 4.4).
Zhang Shiyi¹⁵ （2023）	Breast cancer	TikTok	19 April 2022	156	DISCERN	36.92% of misinformation	Medical professionals were the main source of videos（85.26%）. The professional medical institutions received the highest score in the DISCERN assessment, with a score of (35.5 ± 0.00).
Wang Yaping³⁶ （2023）	Stroke nutrition	TikTok	18 October 2023	143	DISCERN PEMAT-A/V	11.89% of misinformation	The total score of DISCERN is (44.32 ± 8.05), PEMAT-A/V comprehension score is (79.07 ± 14.41), and the operability score is (71.47 ± 21.45). The overall quality of short stroke nutrition videos on the platform is fair.
Cai Ying⁴⁵ （2024）	Gastroesophageal reflux disease	TikTok, Bilibili	10–15 January 2024	TikTok: 83 Bilibil: 81	GQS DISCERN	/	Nongastrointestinal specialists contribute the majority of videos (56.71%). Videos scored 2 and 3 on DISCERN and GQS, respectively, indicating low quality and reliability.
Lai Yong kang⁴⁶ （2024）	Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease	TikTok	December 2018–September 2022	497	DISCERN	/	The videos were mostly posted by health care professionals (93%). The health professionals received the highest score in the DISCERN assessment, with a score of (20.65 ± 0.00)
Song Shijie⁴⁰ （2021）	Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease	TikTok	6–10 December 2020	199	DISCERN	/	The majority of the videos are uploaded by individual users (84.4%). The nonprofit organizations received the highest score in the DISCERN assessment, with a score of (66.8 ± 3.80)
Gong Xun⁴⁷ （2023）	Heart failure	TikTok	6 August 2023	141	DISCERN JAMA GQS	/	Medical professionals were the main source of videos (92.2%). Based on all 141 videos, the median scores were 2, and 2 for JAMA, and GQS. The total score of DISCERN is (26.50 ± 0.00).
Tan Wei²⁹ （2023）	Helicobacter pylori	TikTok	15 July 2022	116	GQS DISCERN	/	DISCERN classified 0.9% of the videos as “very poor,” 5.2% as “poor,” 68.7% as “fair,” 20% as “good” and only 5.2% as “excellent.”
He Zixuan³⁸ （2023）	Dietary guidance for inflammatory bowel disease	TikTok, Bilibili, Kwai	3–5 May 2022	125	GQS DISCERN Dietary guidance for IBD	Less than 30% of the correct dietary recommendations	Most of the video publishers are medical professionals（58%）. The overall quality of the videos was substandard quality. Videos from medical professionals were highly reliable.
Xue Xiaoqiang³⁷ （2022）	Genitourinary cancer	TikTok	13–20 September 2021	61	HONCode DISCERN	36.07% of misinformation	The most videos were contributed by healthcare practitioners (47.54%). According to both the HONCode scale and the DISCERN instrument, 96.72% of TikTok videos were poor to mediocre in quality.
Xun Gong⁴⁸ （2024）	Coronary heart disease	TikTok	29 August–2 September 2022	145	DISCERN JAMA GQS	/	The majority of videos originated from health professionals (88.3%). The overall quality of the videos was generally described as “very poor.” All videos scored on DISCERN score, JAMA and GQS assessment at 27, 2, and 2.
Liu Hui⁴⁹ （2024）	Breast cancer	TikTok, Bilibili	28 July 2023	TikTok: 100 Bilibili: 100	GQS DISCERN	/	The average GQS and identification assessment scores for TikTok videos are 2 and 1, respectively. The median GQS and DISCERN of Bilibili Video is 3 and 2, respectively. TikTok and Bilibili videos are mainly posted by doctors, accounting for 40% and 56% respectively.
He Wenjie⁵⁰ （2024）	Cerebral palsy	TikTok, Kwai, Weibo, Bilibili, RED	21–31 August 2023	TikTok: 77 Kwai: 73 Weibo: 63 Bilibili: 64 RED: 67	DISCERN JAMA GQS	/	The average for JAMA, GQS, and DISCERN stood at 1.62, 2.05, and 1.26, respectively, while RED received the lowest average score.
Wu Minxia³⁹ （2024）	Hypertension and diabetes	WeCha, TikTok	15 August 2022–15 February 2023	WeChat: 60 TikTok: 60	DISCERN JAMA	100% of misinformation	Among all 120 videos, only 10 videos scored above 38 points in DISCERN, with 45 videos rated as “very poor.” The average JAMA rating for videos was 2.08 points.
Wang Li⁵¹ （2023）	Thyroid cancer	TikTok	20 March 2022	56	DISCERN	/	87.5% of videos were uploaded by physicians. The average DISCERN score was (3.44 ± 0.72), while the average content score was (5.19 ± 0.95).
Wang Menghui⁵² （2024）	Gastric cancer	TikTok, Bilibili, YouTube	1 April 2023	TikTok: 100 Bilibili: 100 YouTube: 100	DISCERN JAMA GQS	/	53% of the videos are from medical professionals. In overall quality evaluations by GQS, JAMA, and DISCERN, the videos average scored 2.6/5, 2.41/4, and 2.71/5, respectively.
Zhang Juanjuan⁵³ （2024）	Cervical cancer	TikTok, Kwai	/	TikTok: 82 Kwai: 81	GQS DISCERN	A patient claims that the HPV vaccine is invalid	74.4% of the videos on TikTok and 48.8% of the videos on Kawi were uploaded by medical professionals, respectively. Videos posted by specialists with the highest quality received GQS and DISCERN scores of 3 and 2, respectively.
Zheng Shuseng⁵⁴ （2023）	Liver cancer	TikTok, Bilibili	2 March 2023	TikTok: 100 Bilibil: 100	GQS DISCERN	/	In TikTok, the median GQS was 3 and DISCERN was 5. The median GQS and DISCERN of Bilibili Video is 2 and 4, respectively.
Chen Zeyang³¹ （2022）	Anal fissures	TikTok, YouTube	30 May 2022	TikTok: 62 YouTube: 77	DISCERN PEMAT-A/V GQS	/	Based on DISCERN and GQS ratings, YouTube obtained scores of 40.16 and 33.86, while TikTok received scores of 2.92 and 2.93, respectively. As results of DISCERN, 71% of TikTok videos were evaluated as being of “very poor” or “poor” quality, whereas only 3.2% were assessed as possessing “good quality."
Chen Chang³² （2024）	Osteosarcoma	TikTok, Bilibili	June to July 2023	TikTok: 44 Bilibili: 51	DISCERN JAMA	/	JAMA's average score was (3.8 ± 0.3), while DISCERN's average was (43.8 ± 13.4).
Bai Gaochen³⁰ （2022）	Pediatric urology	TikTok, Bilibili, Weibo	29 March–31 March 2022	TikTok: 90 Bilibili: 90 Weibo: 90	DISCERN JAMA	/	65.8% of the videos were provided by medical professionals. DISCERN's scores was 36.56 and JAMA's scores was 2.68. DISCERN assessed 60.6% of the videos as “very poor” or “poor,” and only 3.9% as “good” or “excellent.”
Li Aoying³³ （2023）	Osteoporosis	TikTok	28 March 2023	100	DISCERN	/	DISCERN scored 37.69, mostly in the “poor” (54%) and “appropriate” (43%) rating ranges, indicating an overall low quality.
Mao Tianyang³⁴ （2024）	Acute pancreatitis (AP)	TikTok	20 September 2023	111	DISCERN HONcode APCS	/	The video is mainly published by doctors (89.18%). According to DISCERN, HONcode, and APCS, the average scores achieved were 33.05 ± 7.87, 3.09 ± 0.93, and 1.86 ± 1.30, respectively. TikTok videos related to AP generally exhibited low quality.
Qiu Jun⁵⁵ （2024）	Heatstroke	TikTok	5 October 2022	90	DISCERN	/	According to the DISCERN evaluation, the short videos’ reliability scores were between 10.5 and 18.4 on a scale of 40, while their information quality scores ranged from 1.5 to 2.7 on a scale of 5. The videos published by nonprofit organizations are of the highest quality.

Notes: Scores for assessment tools are presented as reported in the original studies.

Due to variations in reporting formats across studies (e.g. some did not report measures of dispersion such as standard deviation or interquartile range), the score metrics could not be fully standardized.

Application of evaluation tools for health information quality and credibility

All 25 included studies employed standardized tools to assess the quality and credibility of health-related short videos. The DISCERN instrument was consistently used across all studies, with most combining two or more tools for cross-validation. Other commonly utilized tools included Goobie, the Global Quality Score (GQS), PEMAT-A/V, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks, HONCode, and disease-specific clinical guidelines (Table 1). The main characteristics of each tool are summarized below:

DISCERN, developed by the University of Oxford in 1997, was designed to provide users with a method for evaluating the quality of online information when making decisions about treatment options for health issues.¹⁶ The tool has been widely used to assess the quality of health-related videos across various social media platforms, such as TikTok, Twitter, and Facebook, and has been demonstrated to be effective and applicable for evaluating content on Chinese video-sharing platforms.¹⁷ The DISCERN questionnaire consists of three core dimensions: information reliability (eight items), quality of treatment options (seven items), and overall quality (one item). Each item is scored on a scale from 1 (poorest) to 5 (best), with a total score ranging from 16 to 80. Higher scores indicate better video quality, categorized as follows: very poor (16–26), poor (27–38), moderate (39–50), good (51–62), and excellent (63–80).¹⁸

Goobie was developed in 2019 to evaluate medical content on YouTube, and its assessment framework has been widely applied to the content analysis of online medical videos.^19,20 Goobie focuses on scoring the completeness of six core content categories related to diseases, including the definition of the disease, signs/symptoms, risk factors, diagnosis, management, and outcomes. Each category is rated on a scale of 0 (no content), 0.5 (minimal content), 1 (limited content), 1.5 (moderate content), and 2 (comprehensive content).¹⁹

PEMAT-A/V emphasizes the understandability and actionability of information, with 13 items related to understandability and four items related to actionability. Each item is scored as “agree” (1 point), “disagree” (0 points), or “not applicable.” The final score is calculated as the percentage of all applicable items, with higher percentages indicating greater understandability or actionability. A score exceeding 70% suggests that the information is easily understandable.²¹

JAMA employs a 0–4 rating scale to assess the credibility of video sources, with a median score of ≥2 indicating high quality.²² The GQS scale, ranging from 1 (poor quality) to 5 (excellent quality), is widely recognized for evaluating web-based video content. Videos scoring 4 or 5 are considered high quality;a score of 3 indicates moderate quality, while scores of 1 or 2 reflect low quality.²³

HONcode is a tool designed to harmonize and standardize the quality of online health information, incorporating eight procedural principles: authority, complementarity, privacy, attribution, justifiability, transparency, financial disclosure, and advertising policy.²⁴ Each principle is evaluated numerically, with each question scored as 1 point. Scores of 0–2 indicate low quality, 3–5 indicate moderate quality, and 6–8 indicate high quality.²⁵

Among the 25 included studies, the results from DISCERN and other evaluation tools consistently indicated that most health information-related short videos on Chinese platforms were of substandard quality (see Table 1). These videos exhibited significant shortcomings in terms of content completeness, practicality, and standardization, and a lack of credibility. Health science communication in these videos often fails to comprehensively cover all relevant information.

Status of the quality and credibility of online healthcare information on Chinese short-video platforms

The user base of short videos in China and the demand for online healthcare has shown synchronized growth. By December 2024, the number of short video users in China had reached 1.04 billion, accounting for 95.5% of the total internet user population.²⁶ December 2020 to December 2024 witnessed continuous growth in both the number of short video users and online healthcare users (see Figure 2). Health-related short videos have demonstrated exceptionally high user engagement. Over the past year, medical and health-related videos on TikTok garnered 13.1 billion likes, 3 billion saves, and 1.93 billion shares, with the most-viewed single video exceeding 580 million views.²⁷ On Kuaishou, nearly 230 million users, on average, viewed health and wellness-related videos daily in 2023, while over 80 million users engaged with such content for more than one minute per month.²⁸ These statistics underscore the significant role that short videos play in the popularization of health information.

Figure 2.

The count of short video and online medical users in China (data from China internet information Center²⁶).

Despite advancement, significant deficiencies persist in the accuracy of health information available on Chinese short-video platforms, which continue to fall short of fulfilling the public's essential need for scientifically sound and reliable health knowledge. An analysis of 25 studies reveals that, concerning quality and reliability evaluation, 18 studies identified the quality of the health-related videos on the platforms as poor, five studies rated the quality as moderate or average, and only two studies—focusing on short videos about chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and thyroid cancer of TikTok—reported overall satisfactory quality. Figure 3 provides a visual presentation of DISCERN analysis results for short videos on topics such as Helicobacter pylori,²⁹ pediatric urology,³⁰ anal fissure,³¹ osteosarcoma,³² osteoporosis,³³ and acute pancreatitis.³⁴ For subjects like pediatric urology, anal fissure, osteoporosis, and acute pancreatitis, the majority of videos were rated as “very poor” or “poor” in quality, with only a small proportion achieving ratings of “moderate,” “good,” or “excellent.” Conversely, videos concerning Helicobacter pylori and osteosarcoma exhibited a higher proportion of ratings of “moderate” or above.

Figure 3.

Quality assessment of online healthcare information on Chinese short-video platforms.

Distorted health information on Chinese short video platforms

Distorted health information on Chinese short video platforms has been inadequately addressed in existing research, with a predominant focus on content comprehensiveness rather than the accuracy of health information and the underlying causes of errors. Among the 25 articles reviewed, only six systematically quantified the proportion of distorted health information. The findings indicated substantial variability in error rates across different health topics, ranging from 10.1% to 100%. Vision health had the lowest error rate at 10.1%,³⁵ followed by stroke nutrition at 11.89%,³⁶ genitourinary cancer at 36.07%,³⁷ and breast cancer at 36.92%.¹⁵ In contrast, dietary guidance for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) exceeded 70%,³⁸ and treatment recommendations for hypertension and diabetes reached a 100% error rate³⁹ (see Figure 4).

Figure 4.

The proportion of inaccurate health information on China's short video platforms.

Misinformation predominantly appeared in three distinct forms: (1) contradiction with established authoritative guidelines such as dietary advice for IBD recommending avoidance of dietary fiber and dairy products³⁸), (2) dissemination of outdated information, which involves referencing obsolete data or discontinued methodologies³⁷), and (3) exaggerated claims, exemplified by assertions of “complete cure” or “miracle treatment.”

Association between source and quality of health information short videos

Previous research have shown that the quality of health education videos is influenced by professional background of the author.⁴⁰ Among the studies reviewed only videos related to heatstroke predominantly identified news agencies as the primary source (43.4%). In contrast, the other 24 categories of health-related video were primarily produced by healthcare professionals, such as doctors, medical practitioners, comprising between 40.7% and 98.38% (see Figure 5). Videos originating from medical institutions, science communicators, health professionals, and nonprofits organizations were significantly more accurate and reliable compared to those produced by for-profit organizations, patients, or general users. Consequently, the public is more likely to get access to trustworthy health information in short videos disseminated by healthcare professionals.

Figure 5.

Source of the online health information on Chinese short-video platforms.

Discussion

Features of health information quality on Chinese social media short videos and international comparisons

Most studies have employed assessment tools such as DISCERN, Goobie, and GQS, alongside metrics including video duration and user interaction data (e.g. likes, favorites, and shares), to evaluate content quality. These efforts provide a foundational reference for enhancing public health literacy and standardizing the dissemination of medical information. Drawing on findings from video quality research conducted on platforms such as YouTube and Facebook,^41–45 several consistent issues have been identified. Numerous social media platforms worldwide exhibited problems with suboptimal health information quality. Commonly used assessment tools heavily rely on expertise of raters, while cross-sectional studies only capture the quality characteristics of a small video sample at a single time point. Furthermore, compared to international platforms such as YouTube, Chinese short-video platforms impose duration limits, which may restrict the ability to convey comprehensive information within the allotted time.

In conclusion, the limitations associated with subjective assessment tools and the inherent constraints of cross-sectional studies represent significant impediments to the advancement of health-related short video evaluations. Therefore, the development of objective and automated evaluation tools, coupled with the implementation of long-term longitudinal studies, is essential for addressing current challenges.

Public health risks associated with misleading health information

The high share ability and low comprehension threshold of short videos render them a pivotal medium for the dissemination of health information. However, the pervasive circulation of misleading content presents several public health challenges. Firstly, misinformation directly distorts public health decision-making, potentially resulting in inappropriate lifestyle choices or the abandonment of standard medical treatments. Secondly, exaggerated health rumors can heighten public anxiety and distort perception of risk. Thirdly, the persistent dissemination of low-quality information undermines the credibility of authoritative medical institutions, diminished public acceptance of scientifically validated health information, and hinders the effective implementation of public health policies.

Government should establishing authoritative safeguards and regulatory frameworks

Firstly, it is imperative to establish a dynamically updated authoritative health information database. This initiative should be spearheaded by the National Health Commission, in collaboration with tertiary hospitals and research institutions. The database should cover critical domains such as disease prevention, nutrition, and mental health, providing standardized content for various platforms. It should also undergo quarterly reviews to ensure the information remains current. Secondly, comprehensive regulations governing health information on short video platforms must be issued, clarifying certification standards for content creators, requiring, for instance, that medical practitioners must provide licensure, institutions must submit administrative permits. Additionally, a negative list for content moderation should be established, prohibiting exaggerated claims about health products and the dissemination of false medical advice. A tiered penalty system should be instituted to enforce those regulations, with penalties ranging from content removal and account restrictions to administrative sanctions.

Platforms should integrate technological empowerment with operational optimization

Firstly, the development of a collaborative moderation system involving AI and expert-input should be established. By using the authoritative database, models for text and image recognition can be trained to prescreen health-related short videos, identifying and flagging potentially misleading terms like “complete cure” or “miracle treatment.” This process should be followed by expert review, thereby reducing the moderation cycle to within 24 h. Secondly, the mechanisms for distributing health information content should be optimized. Content originating from verified authoritative accounts should be prioritized with recommendation algorithms, clearly labeled as “authoritative source” in search results, and equipped with mechanisms to trace misinformation and deliver targeted clarifications. Platforms should also incentivize healthcare professionals, including clinicians and nutritionists, to engage in the creation of high-quality content through project-based incentives and traffic support. Thirdly, dedicated sections such as “Health Science Highlights” should be established. These sections would curate high-quality content categorized by disease type or target population (e.g. children, elderly, pregnant women) and integrate online consultation services.

Researchers should strengthen foundational studies and practical contributions

Efforts should focus on typological analysis of health misinformation to inform moderation strategies. This includes developing objective quality assessment systems specifically designed for short video formats, such as weighted models for accuracy, evidence sufficiency, and comprehensibility. Additionally, longitudinal research should be conducted in collaboration with platforms to monitor the impact of quality health content on public behaviors. This approach will provide evidence-based guidance for content creation.

Conclusions

This review identified a suboptimal overall quality of health information disseminated through short-video platforms in China, with misleading content frequently leading to irrational health decisions among the general public. Conversely, videos produced by professional healthcare personnel demonstrated significantly higher quality and credibility. These findings are consistent with studies conducted on platforms such as YouTube and TikTok in other countries.

Currently, most existing research focuses on evaluating the comprehensiveness of health information, while insufficient attention is given to in-depth analyses of the prevalence, typology, and underlying causes of health misinformation. To enhance and standardize the quality of health-related content on short-video platforms, this review proposes three key directions for future research: First, systematic research should be conducted to classify types of health misinformation in short videos, including cognitive misconceptions, deliberate disinformation, and outdated information. Second, the development of artificial intelligence-based real-time monitoring and early warning models for health information is essential to improve the precision and reliability of content dissemination. Third, longitudinal studies spanning one to two years are recommended to thoroughly identify the causal relationships between exposure to health-related short videos and changes in public health awareness and health behaviors.

Moreover, improving the quality of health related videos through a multifaceted approaches including as the optimization of content review process, rigorous verification of creator qualifications, and the refinement of algorithmic recommendation systems constitutes a critical advancement in guaranteeing public access to standardized digital health information.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to extend their sincere gratitude to the participants who contributed to this study.

ORCID iDs

Guanying Luo

Yuanyuan Liu

Xiaoyan Wu

Shunmin Guo

Contributorship

Shunmin Guo conceived and designed the research topic as well as the research direction; Guanying Luo performed the main manuscript, data analysis and figure processing; Yuanyuan Liu collected and screened database articles; Shunmin Guo and Xiaoyan Wu were responsible for revising the manuscript; Xiaoyan Wu checked the format of the draft. All authors reviewed the manuscript and approved the submitted version.

Ethics statement

This study presented in this article does not involve human subjects, animal experiments, or any activities that require ethical committee approval.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by Fujian Academy of Medical Sciences (Grant Number: YKYKT20250002).

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

Onder

Zengin

. YouTube as a source of information on gout: a quality analysis. Rheumatol Int 2021; 41: 1321–1328.

Hong

Yee

Bagchi

, et al. Social media-based intervention to promote HBV screening and liver cancer prevention among Korean Americans: results of a pilot study. Digital Health 2022; 8: 20552076221076257.

Zhang

Wang

, et al. The impact of short video-based integrated media nursing education on diabetic patients with foot ulcers in the remission phase. Journal of Nurses Training 2023; 38: 822–826.

Sumayyia

Al-Madaney

Almousawi

. Health information on social media. Perceptions, attitudes, and practices of patients and their companions. Saudi Med J 2019; 40: 1294–1298.

Iftikhar

Abaalkhail

. Health-seeking influence reflected by online health-related messages received on social media: cross-sectional survey. J Med Internet Res 2017; 19: e382.

Waszak

Kasprzycka-Waszak

Kubanek

. The spread of medical fake news in social media-the pilot quantitative study. Health Policy Technol 2018; 7: 115–118.

Sommariva

Vamos

Mantzarlis

, et al. Spreading the (fake) news: exploring health messages on social media and the implications for health professionals using a case study. Am J Health Educ 2018; 49: 246–255.

Kirkpatrick

Lawrie

. TikTok as a source of health information and misinformation for young women in the United States: survey study. JMIR Infodemiology 2024; 4: e54663.

Morton

Haight

Khadraoui

, et al. More than a song and dance: exploration of patient perspectives and educational quality of gynecologic cancer content on TikTok. Gynecol Oncol 2023; 175: 81–87.

10.

MyFitnessPal. Concerning new statistics highlight inaccurate nutrition trends on TikTok.https://infomeddnews.com/concerning-new-statistics-highlight-inaccurate-nutrition-trends-on-TikTok/. Accessed 11 April, 2024.

11.

Yeung

Abi-Jaoude

. TikTok and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a cross-sectional study of social media content quality. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 2022; 67: 899–906.

12.

Baumel

Spatharakis

Karitsiotis

, et al. Dissemination of mask effectiveness misinformation using TikTok as a medium. Journal of Adolescent Health 2021; 68: 1021–1022.

13.

O'Sullivan

Nason

Manecksha

, et al. The unintentional spread of misinformation on ‘TikTok’: a paediatric urological perspective. J Pediatr Urol 2021; 68: 1021–1022.

14.

Taylor

Gao

, et al. TikTok and prostate cancer: misinformation and quality of information using validated questionnaires. BJU Int 2021; 128: 435–437.

15.

Zhang

Gao

, et al. Quality evaluation on videos of breast cancer based on TikTok. Modern Preventive Medicine 2023; 50: 3179–3185.

16.

Huang

Winoker

Allaf

, et al. Evidence-based quality and accuracy of YouTube videos about nephrolithiasis. BJU Int 2021; 127: 247–253.

17.

Fullard

Johnston

Hehir

. Quality and reliability evaluation of current internet information regarding mesh use in inguinal hernia surgery using HONcode and the discern instrument. Hernia 2021; 25: 1325–1330.

18.

YYacob

Lotfi

Tang

, et al. Wikipedia in vascular surgery medical education: comparative study. JMIR Medical Education 2020; 6: e18076.

19.

Goobie

Guler

Johannson

, et al. YouTube videos as a source of misinformation on idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2019; 16: 572–579.

20.

Kong

Song

Zhao

, et al. TikTok as a health information source: assessment of the quality of information in diabetes-related videos. J Med Internet Res 2021; 23: e30409.

21.

Shoemaker

Wolf

Brach

. Development of the patient education materials assessment tool (PEMAT): a new measure of understandability and actionability for print and audiovisual patient information. Patient Educ Couns 2014; 96: 395–403.

22.

Silberg

Lundberg

Musacchio

. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the internet: caveant lector et viewor-let the reader and viewer beware. Jama 1997; 277: 1244–1245.

23.

Kocyigit

Akaltun

. Does YouTube provide high quality information? Assessment of secukinumab videos. Rheumatol Int 2019; 39: 1263–1268.

24.

Laversin

Baujard

Gaudinat

, et al. Improving the transparency of health information found on the internet through the HONcode: a comparative study. In: User centred networked health care, Vol. 169. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: IOS Press, 2011, pp. 654–658.

25.

Wilkens

Ganter

Kriegsmann

, et al.

YouTube-videos for patient education in lymphangioleiomyomatosis?

Respir Res 2022; 23: 103.

26.

The China Internet Network Information Center. The 54th statistical report on internet development in China. https://www.cnnic.cn/n4/2024/0828/c208-11063.html. Accessed 29 May, 2024.

27.

TikTok medical. Relevant data of medical science popularization creators. https://www.news.cn/tech/20240820/7586f010cbd64087b120b24b543ae484/c.html. Accessed 20 August, 2024.

28.

Kwai. Kwai large health industry data report. https://www.baogaoting.com/info/580888. Accessed 22 March, 2024.

29.

Tan

Liu

Shi

, et al. Information quality of videos related to Helicobacter pylori infection on TikTok: cross-sectional study. Helicobacter 2024; 29: e13029.

30.

Bai

, et al. Quality of internet videos related to pediatric urology in mainland China: a cross-sectional study. Front Public Health 2022; 10: 924748.

31.

Chen

Pan

Zuo

. TikTok and YouTube as sources of information on anal fissure: a comparative analysis. Front Public Health 2022; 10: 1000338.

32.

Chen

Yin

, et al. Quality assessment of online osteosarcoma–related videos in mainland China: a cross-sectional study. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery 2024; 32: 10225536231224833.

33.

Xing

Zhang

, et al. Evaluation of the information quality related to osteoporosis on TikTok. BMC Public Health 2024; 24: 2880.

34.

Mao

Zhao

Jiang

, et al. Evaluation of TikTok videos on acute pancreatitis: content quality and reliability analysis. BMC Public Health 2024; 24: 1216.

35.

Ming

Han

, et al. TikTok and adolescent vision health: content and information quality assessment of the top short videos related to myopia. Front Public Health 2023; 10: 1068582.

36.

Wang

Dai

, et al. Evaluation of the health information quality of stroke nutrition short videos on TikTok. Health Medicine Research and Practice 2023; 20: 224–227.

37.

Xue

Yang

, et al. TikTok as an information hodgepodge: evaluation of the quality and reliability of genitourinary cancers related content. Front Oncol 2022; 12: 789956.

38.

Wang

Song

, et al. The reliability and quality of short videos as a source of dietary guidance for inflammatory bowel disease: cross-sectional study. J Med Internet Res 2023; 25: e41518.

39.

Yang

Chen

. Evaluation of treatment information quality on hypertension and diabetes on WeChat and TikTok: a cross-sectional content analysis. Health Informatics J 2024; 30: 14604582241275824.

40.

Song

Xue

Zhao

, et al. Short-video apps as a health information source for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: information quality assessment of TikTok videos. J Med Internet Res 2021; 23: e28318.

41.

Raghavan

Gawel

Vijay

, et al. Quality of information on lip tie in YouTube videos: a content analysis. Cureus 2024; 16:11.

42.

Kayabaşı

Köksaldı

, et al. Evaluating the quality and reliability of YouTube videos on myopia: a video content analysis. Int Ophthalmol 2024; 44: 329.

43.

Kirkpatrick

LaRissa

. TikTok as a source of health information and misinformation for young women in the United States: survey study. JMIR Infodemiology 2024; 4: e54663.

44.

Huang

Wang

. Evaluation of the health information quality of osteoarthritis short videos on TikTok. Chinese Journal of Medical Device 2024; 37: 63–66.

45.

Cai

Zeng

Yang

, et al. The status quo of short video as sources of health information on gastroesophageal reflux disease in China: a cross-sectional study. Front Public Health 2024; 12: 1400749.

46.

Lai

Liu

, et al. The quality and reliability of TikTok videos on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a propensity score matching analysis. Front Public Health 2023; 11: 1231240.

47.

Gong

Dong

, et al. TikTok video as a health education source of information on heart failure in China: a content analysis. Front Public Health 2023; 11: 1315393.

48.

Gong

Chen

Ning

, et al. The quality of short videos as a source of coronary heart disease information on TikTok: cross-sectional study. JMIR Formative Research 2024; 11: 1296386.

49.

Liu

Peng

, et al. Assessment of the reliability and quality of breast cancer related videos on TikTok and Bilibili: cross-sectional study in China. Front Public Health 2024; 11: 1296386.

50.

Tang

Jin

, et al. Quality of cerebral palsy-related videos on Chinese social media platforms. Scientific Reports 2024; 15: 13323.

51.

Wang

, et al. A quality analysis of thyroid cancer videos available on TikTok. Front Public Health 2023; 11: 1049728.

52.

Wang

Yao

Wang

, et al. Bilibili, TikTok, and YouTube as sources of information on gastric cancer: assessment and analysis of the content and quality. BMC Public Health 2024; 24: 57.

53.

Zhang

Yuan

Zhang

, et al. Short video platforms as sources of health information about cervical cancer: a content and quality analysis. Plos One 2024; 19: e0300180.

54.

Zheng

Tong

Wan

, et al. Quality and reliability of liver cancer-related short Chinese videos on TikTok and Bilibili: cross-sectional content analysis study. J Med Internet Res 2023; 25: e47210.

55.

Qiu

Zhou

Y-L

. Quality assessment of heatstroke videos on TikTok. Front Public Health 2024; 12: 1446003.