TikTok and prostate cancer: misinformation and quality of information using validated questionnaires

Xu, A.; Taylor, Jacob; Tian, Ganghong; Mihalcea, Rada; Pérez-Rosas, Verónica; Loeb, Stacy

doi:10.1111/bju.15403

Cited by 77 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Amongst 61 evaluated sample videos, 22 (36.07%) had unequivocal misinformation, which was in line with previous data ( 7 , 15 , 18 ), indicating that the correctness of online health promotion videos might not have been improved in recent years. Most misinformation was based on obsolete data and content, even at the point of time when the videos were initially posted.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

See 1 more Smart Citation

TikTok as an Information Hodgepodge: Evaluation of the Quality and Reliability of Genitourinary Cancers Related Content

Xue

Yang

et al. 2022

Front. Oncol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTikTok is the world’s fastest-growing video application, with 1.6 billion users in 2021. More and more patients are searching for information on genitourinary cancers via TikTok. We aim to evaluate the functional quality and reliability of genitourinary cancer-related videos on it and share our thoughts based on the results for better public health promotion.Materials and MethodsWe retrieved 167 videos on bladder, prostate, and kidney cancer from TikTok. Only 61 videos (36.53%) met the inclusion criteria and were eventually regarded as sample videos. Each video’s length and descriptions, hashtags, number of views/likes/comments, forms of expression, and the uploader’s profile were included. Three validated assessment instruments: the Hexagonal Radar Schema, the Health on the Net Code scale, and the DISCERN instrument, were used for evaluating the quality and reliability of the information. All misinformation was counted and categorized. Univariate analysis of variance was performed for analyzing the results. The Post-Hoc least significant difference test was conducted to explore further explanation.ResultsAmongst 61 sample videos, healthcare practitioners contributed the most content (n = 29, 47.54%). However, 22 posts (36.07%) were misinformative, and the most common type was using outdated data. More than half of the videos could provide good (> 1 point) content on the diseases’ symptoms and examinations. However, the definition and outcomes were less addressed (tied at 21%). The HONcode scale and the DISCERN instrument revealed a consistent conclusion that most videos (n = 59, 96.72%) on TikTok were of poor to mediocre quality. Videos published by media agencies were statistically better in terms of reliability and overall score (P = 0.003 and 0.008, respectively). Fifty-three videos (86.89%) had at least two unexplained medical terms. Healthcare professionals tend to use professional terms most (mean = 5.28 words).ConclusionsMost videos on genitourinary cancers on TikTok are of poor to medium quality and reliability. However, videos posted by media agencies enjoyed great public attention and interaction. Medical practitioners could improve the video quality by cooperating with media agencies and avoiding unexplained terminologies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Notwithstanding the rich and varied digital resources on TikTok, its role in healthcare promotion remains inceptive. To date, no research paper has systematically assessed the quality and solidity of GUCa content on it except for one published short communication ( 7 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

TikTok as an Information Hodgepodge: Evaluation of the Quality and Reliability of Genitourinary Cancers Related Content

Xue

Yang

et al. 2022

Front. Oncol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A few studies document the spread of public health-related misinformation, on the topics of COVID-19 10 and prostate cancer. 11 The extent of dis/misinformation on other topics has not yet been investigated. Research is warranted to examine dis/misinformation on all public-health and non-public health topics, including but not limited to vaccines, cancer, experimental medicine, conspiracy theories, alternative and unproven medicine, election integrity, drug/medical regulatory processes, climate change and other important topics.…”

Section: Dis/misinformation Spreadmentioning

confidence: 99%

TikTok and public health: a proposed research agenda

Zenone

Barbic

2021

BMJ Glob Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Moreover, poor quality content had not only more views but also generally high engagement from viewers [130]. More recently, among the limited number of TikTok posts with objective PCa information, 41% was classified as misinformative [131].…”

Section: B2b: Prostate Cancer Summarymentioning

confidence: 99%