Back
Science

Study Reveals Discrepancy Between Credibility and Engagement of Sudden Cardiac Death Information on TikTok

Generated on: Last updated: 1 sources
View source

TikTok Videos on Sudden Cardiac Death: Quality, Sentiment, and Engagement Examined

A new study published in the journal Scientific Reports evaluated the quality, sentiment, and engagement of TikTok videos related to sudden cardiac death (SCD). The research aimed to examine the risks associated with TikTok as a source of health information, particularly due to its popularity among younger audiences and concerns regarding inconsistent regulation of misinformation.

The study highlights the critical need to understand how health information, especially on serious topics like sudden cardiac death, is presented and consumed on platforms like TikTok.

Study Design and Methodology

Researchers utilized the Exolyt analytics platform to identify SCD-related content on TikTok, specifically selecting the top 50 videos for two hashtags. Data collection for the analysis occurred on December 22, 2024.

After a rigorous exclusion process—removing duplicates, non-English videos, and those with insufficient data—a total of 83 videos were included in the final analysis. This sample was carefully categorized based on content creators:

The final sample comprised 52 videos created by non-healthcare professionals (non-HCPs) and 31 by healthcare professionals (HCPs).

Content creators were categorized based on their publicly available self-declared profile information. Health information quality in the videos was assessed using adapted versions of three established tools: the DISCERN scale, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark, and the Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, and Purpose (CRAAP) test.

A sentiment analysis classified the emotional tone of the video content as neutral, positive, or negative. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was employed to analyze associations between video characteristics, quality assessment scores, and sentiment.

Key Findings

The study determined that HCP-created videos were significantly longer than those made by non-HCPs. Conversely, non-HCP videos garnered higher reshares, favorited counts, and overall engagement rates.

A notable difference in content quality was observed: HCP videos consistently scored significantly higher on DISCERN, JAMA benchmark, and CRAAP assessments.

Specifically, HCP videos demonstrated superior performance across various quality domains, including:

  • DISCERN: Clearer aims, stronger relevance, better source identification, and clearer information presentation.
  • Comprehensive Information: More robust provision of additional resources, balanced perspectives, and descriptions of therapeutic mechanisms, benefits, treatment options, risks, and quality of life impacts.
  • JAMA Benchmark: Stronger authorship, source attribution, avoidance of promotional motives, and currency of content.
  • CRAAP Test: Higher scores for verifiable credentials, creator credibility, information accuracy, objectivity, and educational purpose.

Regarding engagement metrics, video duration and the number of reshares were positively associated with all three quality assessment scores. Favorited videos showed a positive correlation with JAMA and CRAAP scores. Importantly, HCP status was strongly correlated with higher quality scores.

Sentiment analysis indicated no statistically significant difference in emotional tone between HCP and non-HCP videos. However, 59% of non-HCP videos had a positive sentiment compared to 41% of HCP videos. Sentiment exhibited a negative correlation with video duration but no significant correlation with other metrics such as reshares, views, or engagement rates.

Implications

In conclusion, the study found that TikTok videos about SCD produced by HCPs offered superior content quality and credibility but achieved lower engagement rates than those from non-HCPs.

This highlights a crucial gap between the accuracy of health information and its widespread reach on social media platforms.

Study Limitations

The researchers acknowledged several limitations of the study. These included its cross-sectional design, the exclusive assessment of highly ranked English-language videos under only two hashtags, and reliance on adapted scoring tools and reviewer judgments. Consequently, the findings should be interpreted with caution.