背景:急性胰腺炎(AP)是一种常见的急性消化系统疾病,患者经常转向TikTok获取AP相关信息。然而,该平台在AP上的视频质量尚未得到彻底调查。
目的:本研究的主要目的是评估TikTok上有关AP的视频质量,次要目的是研究视频质量的相关因素。
方法:这项研究涉及从TikTok检索与AP相关的视频,确定,并根据预定义的纳入和排除标准进行分析。提取并编制相关数据进行评价。使用DISCERN仪器和网络上的健康(HONcode)评分对视频质量进行评分,通过引入急性胰腺炎含量评分(APCS)来补充。Pearson相关性分析用于评估视频质量得分与用户参与度指标之间的相关性,例如喜欢,注释,收藏夹,转发,和视频持续时间。
结果:共纳入111个TikTok视频进行分析,视频出版商由医生组成(89.18%),新闻媒体机构(13.51%),个人用户(5.41%),和医疗机构(0.9%)。大多数视频集中在与AP相关的教育内容(64.87%),其次是医生的诊断和治疗记录(15.32%),和个人经历(19.81%)。DISCERN的平均分数,HONcode,APCS分别为33.05±7.87、3.09±0.93和1.86±1.30。最高的视频分数是医生发布的视频(DISCERN为35.17±7.02,3.31±0.56forHONcode,APCS为1.94±1.34,分别)。根据APCS,主要内容集中在病因(n=55,49.5%)和临床表现(n=36,32.4%),其次是治疗(n=24,21.6%),严重程度(n=20,18.0%),预防(n=19,17.1%),病理生理学(n=17,15.3%),定义(n=13,11.7%),考试(n=10,9%),等相关内容。三种评价工具的得分与关注者数量之间没有相关性,喜欢,注释,收藏夹,和视频的转发。然而,DISCERN(r=0.309)和APCS(r=0.407)与视频持续时间呈显著正相关,而HONcode显示与视频的持续时间没有相关性。
结论:与AP相关的TikTok视频的总体质量较差;然而,医学专业人员发布的内容显示出相对较高的质量,主要关注临床表现和病因。视频持续时间和质量评级之间存在明显的相关性,这表明结合该指南的组合方法可以全面评估TikTok上与AP相关的内容。
BACKGROUND: Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a common acute digestive system disorder, with patients often turning to TikTok for AP-related information. However, the platform\'s video quality on AP has not been thoroughly investigated.
OBJECTIVE: The main purpose of this study is to evaluate the quality of videos about AP on TikTok, and the secondary purpose is to study the related factors of video quality.
METHODS: This study involved retrieving AP-related videos from TikTok, determining, and analyzing them based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Relevant data were extracted and compiled for evaluation. Video quality was scored using the DISCERN instrument and the Health on the Net (HONcode) score, complemented by introducing the Acute Pancreatitis Content Score (APCS). Pearson correlation analysis was used to assess the correlation between video quality scores and user engagement metrics such as likes, comments, favorites, retweets, and video duration.
RESULTS: A total of 111 TikTok videos were included for analysis, and video publishers were composed of physicians (89.18%), news media organizations (13.51%), individual users (5.41%), and medical institutions (0.9%). The majority of videos focused on AP-related educational content (64.87%), followed by physicians\' diagnostic and treatment records (15.32%), and personal experiences (19.81%). The mean scores for DISCERN, HONcode, and APCS were 33.05 ± 7.87, 3.09 ± 0.93, and 1.86 ± 1.30, respectively. The highest video scores were those posted by physicians (35.17 ± 7.02 for DISCERN, 3.31 ± 0.56 for HONcode, and 1.94 ± 1.34 for APCS, respectively). According to the APCS, the main contents focused on etiology (n = 55, 49.5%) and clinical presentations (n = 36, 32.4%), followed by treatment (n = 24, 21.6%), severity (n = 20, 18.0%), prevention (n = 19, 17.1%), pathophysiology (n = 17, 15.3%), definitions (n = 13, 11.7%), examinations (n = 10, 9%), and other related content. There was no correlation between the scores of the three evaluation tools and the number of followers, likes, comments, favorites, and retweets of the video. However, DISCERN (r = 0.309) and APCS (r = 0.407) showed a significant positive correlation with video duration, while HONcode showed no correlation with the duration of the video.
CONCLUSIONS: The general quality of TikTok videos related to AP is poor; however, the content posted by medical professionals shows relatively higher quality, predominantly focusing on clinical presentations and etiologies. There is a discernible correlation between video duration and quality ratings, indicating that a combined approach incorporating the guideline can comprehensively evaluate AP-related content on TikTok.