TikTok content as a source of health education regarding epicondylitis: a content analysis.

IF 3 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology Pub Date : 2024-03-23 DOI:10.1186/s10195-024-00757-3
Riccardo D'Ambrosi, Enrico Bellato, Gianluca Bullitta, Antonio Benedetto Cecere, Katia Corona, Angelo De Crescenzo, Valentina Fogliata, Gian Mario Micheloni, Maristella Francesca Saccomanno, Fabrizio Vitullo, Andrea Celli
{"title":"TikTok content as a source of health education regarding epicondylitis: a content analysis.","authors":"Riccardo D'Ambrosi, Enrico Bellato, Gianluca Bullitta, Antonio Benedetto Cecere, Katia Corona, Angelo De Crescenzo, Valentina Fogliata, Gian Mario Micheloni, Maristella Francesca Saccomanno, Fabrizio Vitullo, Andrea Celli","doi":"10.1186/s10195-024-00757-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to assess the validity and informational value of TikTok content about epicondylitis. The hypothesis tested herein was that TikTok video content would not provide adequate and valid information.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The term \"epicondylitis\" was used as a keyword to comprehensively search for TikTok videos, and the first 100 videos that were retrieved were subsequently included for analysis. The duration, number of likes, number of shares and number of views were recorded for each video. Furthermore, the videos were categorized on the basis of their source (medical doctor, physiotherapist, or private user), type of information (physical therapy, anatomy, clinical examination, etiopathogenesis, patient experience, treatment, or other), video content (rehabilitation, education, or patient experience/testimony), and the presence of music or voice. Assessments of video content quality and reliability were conducted using the DISCERN tool, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, and the Global Quality Score (GQS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 100 videos were included in the analysis: 78 (78.0%) were published by physiotherapists, 18 were published by medical doctors (18.0%), and 4 were published by private users (4.0%). Most of the information pertained to physical therapy (75; 75.0%) and most of the content was about rehabilitation (75; 75.0%). The mean length of the videos was 42.51 ± 24.75 seconds; the mean number of views was 193,207.78 ± 1,300,853.86; and the mean number of comments, likes, and shares were 22.43 ± 62.54, 1578.52 ± 8333.11, and 149.87 ± 577.73, respectively. The mean DISCERN score, JAMA score, and GQS were 18.12 ± 5.73, 0.80 ± 0.53, and 1.30 ± 0.52, respectively. Videos posted by medical doctors/private users had higher scores (p < 0.05) than videos posted by physiotherapists. Videos that focused on education or patient experience had higher scores (p < 0.05) than videos based on rehabilitation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>TikTok can be an unreliable source of information regarding epicondylitis treatment. It is common to find nonphysicians who share medical advice on the platform, with medical treatments demonstrating the weakest level of supporting evidence. Elbow surgeons should advise their patients that treatment recommendations from TikTok may not align with established guidelines.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level IV-Cross-sectional study.</p>","PeriodicalId":48603,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10960784/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s10195-024-00757-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to assess the validity and informational value of TikTok content about epicondylitis. The hypothesis tested herein was that TikTok video content would not provide adequate and valid information.

Methods: The term "epicondylitis" was used as a keyword to comprehensively search for TikTok videos, and the first 100 videos that were retrieved were subsequently included for analysis. The duration, number of likes, number of shares and number of views were recorded for each video. Furthermore, the videos were categorized on the basis of their source (medical doctor, physiotherapist, or private user), type of information (physical therapy, anatomy, clinical examination, etiopathogenesis, patient experience, treatment, or other), video content (rehabilitation, education, or patient experience/testimony), and the presence of music or voice. Assessments of video content quality and reliability were conducted using the DISCERN tool, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, and the Global Quality Score (GQS).

Results: A total of 100 videos were included in the analysis: 78 (78.0%) were published by physiotherapists, 18 were published by medical doctors (18.0%), and 4 were published by private users (4.0%). Most of the information pertained to physical therapy (75; 75.0%) and most of the content was about rehabilitation (75; 75.0%). The mean length of the videos was 42.51 ± 24.75 seconds; the mean number of views was 193,207.78 ± 1,300,853.86; and the mean number of comments, likes, and shares were 22.43 ± 62.54, 1578.52 ± 8333.11, and 149.87 ± 577.73, respectively. The mean DISCERN score, JAMA score, and GQS were 18.12 ± 5.73, 0.80 ± 0.53, and 1.30 ± 0.52, respectively. Videos posted by medical doctors/private users had higher scores (p < 0.05) than videos posted by physiotherapists. Videos that focused on education or patient experience had higher scores (p < 0.05) than videos based on rehabilitation.

Conclusions: TikTok can be an unreliable source of information regarding epicondylitis treatment. It is common to find nonphysicians who share medical advice on the platform, with medical treatments demonstrating the weakest level of supporting evidence. Elbow surgeons should advise their patients that treatment recommendations from TikTok may not align with established guidelines.

Level of evidence: Level IV-Cross-sectional study.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
将 TikTok 内容作为上髁炎健康教育的来源:内容分析。
目的:本研究旨在评估 TikTok 上髁炎内容的有效性和信息价值。本研究测试的假设是:TikTok 视频内容无法提供充分、有效的信息:以 "外上髁炎 "为关键词对 TikTok 视频进行全面搜索,并对搜索到的前 100 个视频进行分析。每个视频的持续时间、点赞数、分享数和观看数都被记录下来。此外,还根据视频来源(医生、物理治疗师或私人用户)、信息类型(物理治疗、解剖、临床检查、病因、患者经历、治疗或其他)、视频内容(康复、教育或患者经历/证词)以及是否有音乐或语音对视频进行了分类。使用 DISCERN 工具、《美国医学会杂志》(JAMA)基准标准和全球质量评分(GQS)对视频内容的质量和可靠性进行了评估:共有 100 个视频被纳入分析:78 个(78.0%)由物理治疗师发布,18 个由医生发布(18.0%),4 个由私人用户发布(4.0%)。大部分信息与物理治疗有关(75;75.0%),大部分内容与康复有关(75;75.0%)。视频的平均长度为 42.51 ± 24.75 秒;平均观看次数为 193,207.78 ± 1,300,853.86 次;评论、点赞和分享的平均次数分别为 22.43 ± 62.54 次、1578.52 ± 8333.11 次和 149.87 ± 577.73 次。DISCERN 评分、JAMA 评分和 GQS 的平均值分别为 18.12 ± 5.73、0.80 ± 0.53 和 1.30 ± 0.52。由医生/私人用户发布的视频得分更高(P 结论:TikTok 并不可靠:TikTok可能是一种不可靠的上髁炎治疗信息来源。在该平台上,非医生分享医疗建议的现象很常见,而医学治疗的支持证据水平最弱。肘部外科医生应告知患者,TikTok上的治疗建议可能与既定指南不一致:证据级别:IV级-横断面研究
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology
Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology Medicine-Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
56
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, the official open access peer-reviewed journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, publishes original papers reporting basic or clinical research in the field of orthopaedic and traumatologic surgery, as well as systematic reviews, brief communications, case reports and letters to the Editor. Narrative instructional reviews and commentaries to original articles may be commissioned by Editors from eminent colleagues. The Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology aims to be an international forum for the communication and exchange of ideas concerning the various aspects of orthopaedics and musculoskeletal trauma.
期刊最新文献
Is there a difference in pelvic and femoral morphology in early periprosthetic femoral fracture in cementless short stem total hip arthroplasty via an anterolateral approach? Differences in the effectiveness of leukocyte-rich platelet-rich plasma compared with leukocyte-poor platelet-rich plasma in the treatment of rotator cuff surgery: an umbrella review of meta-analyses. Can a single question replace patient-reported outcomes in the follow-up of elbow arthroplasty? A validation study. Are the costs of 3D printing for surgical procedures yet to be definitively assessed? The extensive use of 3D printing in trauma does not yet fit the value-based healthcare era.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1