• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

短视频作为健康信息来源的现状:一项横断面研究。

The status quo of short videos as a health information source of : a cross-sectional study.

机构信息

Department of Gastroenterology, Ganzhou People's Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Ganzhou, China.

Department of Gastroenterology, Shanghai Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China.

出版信息

Front Public Health. 2024 Jan 8;11:1344212. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1344212. eCollection 2023.

DOI:10.3389/fpubh.2023.1344212
PMID:38259733
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10800962/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Health education about is one of the most effective methods to prevent infection and standardize eradication treatment. Short videos enable people to absorb and remember information more easily and are an important source of health education. This study aimed to assess the information quality of -related videos on Chinese short video-sharing platforms.

METHODS

A total of 242 -related videos from three Chinese short video-sharing platforms with the most users, TikTok, Bilibili, and Kwai, were retrieved. The Global Quality Score (GQS) and the modified DISCERN tool were used to assess the quality and content of videos, respectively. Additionally, comparative analyzes of videos based on different sources and common issues were also conducted.

RESULTS

The median GQS score and DISCERN score was 2 for -related videos analyzed in this study. Non-gastroenterologists posted the most related videos (136/242, 56.2%). Videos from gastroenterologists (51/242, 21.0%) had the highest GQS and DISCERN scores, with a median of 3. Few videos had content on family-based infection control and management (5.8%), whether all -positive patients need to undergo eradication treatment (27.7%), and the adverse effects of eradication therapy (16.1%).

CONCLUSION

Generally, the content and quality of the information in -related videos were unsatisfactory, and the quality of the video correlated with the source of the video. Videos from gastroenterologists provided more correct guidance with higher-quality information on the prevention and treatment of infection.

摘要

背景

关于 的健康教育是预防 感染和规范 根除治疗的最有效方法之一。短视频使人们更容易吸收和记住信息,是健康教育的重要来源。本研究旨在评估中国短视频分享平台上与 相关的视频的信息质量。

方法

从用户最多的三个中国短视频分享平台(TikTok、Bilibili 和 Kwai)共检索到 242 个与 相关的视频。使用全球质量评分(GQS)和改良的 DISCERN 工具分别评估视频的质量和内容。此外,还对基于不同来源和常见问题的视频进行了比较分析。

结果

本研究分析的与 相关的视频的中位数 GQS 评分和 DISCERN 评分均为 2。非胃肠病学家发布的相关视频最多(136/242,56.2%)。来自胃肠病学家(51/242,21.0%)的视频具有最高的 GQS 和 DISCERN 评分,中位数分别为 3。很少有视频涉及基于家庭的 感染控制和管理(5.8%)、所有 阳性患者是否都需要进行根除治疗(27.7%)以及 根除治疗的不良反应(16.1%)。

结论

总体而言,与 相关的视频的内容和质量不尽如人意,且视频质量与视频来源相关。来自胃肠病学家的视频提供了更正确的指导,有关 感染预防和治疗的信息质量更高。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1617/10800962/a8d518df133a/fpubh-11-1344212-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1617/10800962/2318d5565bb8/fpubh-11-1344212-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1617/10800962/98b5a78f21a3/fpubh-11-1344212-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1617/10800962/57770944e5cf/fpubh-11-1344212-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1617/10800962/a8d518df133a/fpubh-11-1344212-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1617/10800962/2318d5565bb8/fpubh-11-1344212-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1617/10800962/98b5a78f21a3/fpubh-11-1344212-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1617/10800962/57770944e5cf/fpubh-11-1344212-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1617/10800962/a8d518df133a/fpubh-11-1344212-g004.jpg

相似文献

1
The status quo of short videos as a health information source of : a cross-sectional study.短视频作为健康信息来源的现状:一项横断面研究。
Front Public Health. 2024 Jan 8;11:1344212. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1344212. eCollection 2023.
2
TikTok and Bilibili as sources of information on Helicobacter pylori in China: A content and quality analysis.中国的TikTok和哔哩哔哩作为幽门螺杆菌信息来源:内容与质量分析
Helicobacter. 2023 Oct;28(5):e13007. doi: 10.1111/hel.13007. Epub 2023 Jul 15.
3
YouTube/ Bilibili/ TikTok videos as sources of medical information on laryngeal carcinoma: cross-sectional content analysis study.YouTube/ Bilibili/ TikTok 视频作为喉癌医学信息来源:横断面内容分析研究。
BMC Public Health. 2024 Jun 14;24(1):1594. doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-19077-6.
4
Quality and Reliability of Liver Cancer-Related Short Chinese Videos on TikTok and Bilibili: Cross-Sectional Content Analysis Study.肝癌相关短视频在 TikTok 和 Bilibili 上的质量与可靠性:一项横断面内容分析研究。
J Med Internet Res. 2023 Jul 5;25:e47210. doi: 10.2196/47210.
5
Short video platforms as sources of health information about cervical cancer: A content and quality analysis.短视频平台作为宫颈癌健康信息来源:内容和质量分析。
PLoS One. 2024 Mar 8;19(3):e0300180. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300180. eCollection 2024.
6
Information quality of videos related to Helicobacter pylori infection on TikTok: Cross-sectional study.关于 TikTok 上幽门螺杆菌感染相关视频的信息质量:横断面研究。
Helicobacter. 2024 Jan-Feb;29(1):e13029. doi: 10.1111/hel.13029. Epub 2023 Oct 12.
7
YouTube as a source of information on Helicobacter pylori: Content and quality analysis.YouTube 作为幽门螺杆菌信息来源:内容和质量分析。
Helicobacter. 2023 Aug;28(4):e12971. doi: 10.1111/hel.12971. Epub 2023 Mar 21.
8
Assessment of the reliability and quality of breast cancer related videos on TikTok and Bilibili: cross-sectional study in China.TikTok和哔哩哔哩上乳腺癌相关视频的可靠性和质量评估:中国的横断面研究
Front Public Health. 2024 Jan 22;11:1296386. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1296386. eCollection 2023.
9
The status quo of short video as sources of health information on gastroesophageal reflux disease in China: a cross-sectional study.中国短视频作为胃食管反流病健康信息来源的现状:一项横断面研究。
Front Public Health. 2024 May 28;12:1400749. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1400749. eCollection 2024.
10
The Reliability and Quality of Short Videos as a Source of Dietary Guidance for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Cross-sectional Study.短视频作为炎症性肠病饮食指导来源的可靠性和质量:横断面研究。
J Med Internet Res. 2023 Feb 9;25:e41518. doi: 10.2196/41518.

引用本文的文献

1
Assessing the quality of myopia prevention videos on Chinese short video platforms: a cross-sectional content analysis by source.评估中国短视频平台上近视预防视频的质量:基于来源的横断面内容分析
BMJ Open. 2025 Aug 21;15(8):e102818. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2025-102818.
2
Status of short videos as health information sources for chronic pancreatitis in China: a cross-sectional study.中国短视频作为慢性胰腺炎健康信息来源的现状:一项横断面研究。
BMC Gastroenterol. 2025 Jun 2;25(1):423. doi: 10.1186/s12876-025-04005-8.
3
Knowledge, attitude, and practice toward Helicobacter pylori among residents in Northeast China‌.

本文引用的文献

1
The quality and reliability of TikTok videos on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a propensity score matching analysis.非酒精性脂肪性肝病 TikTok 视频的质量和可靠性:倾向评分匹配分析。
Front Public Health. 2023 Oct 4;11:1231240. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1231240. eCollection 2023.
2
Information quality of videos related to Helicobacter pylori infection on TikTok: Cross-sectional study.关于 TikTok 上幽门螺杆菌感染相关视频的信息质量:横断面研究。
Helicobacter. 2024 Jan-Feb;29(1):e13029. doi: 10.1111/hel.13029. Epub 2023 Oct 12.
3
TikTok and Bilibili as sources of information on Helicobacter pylori in China: A content and quality analysis.
中国东北地区居民对幽门螺杆菌的认知、态度及行为
Sci Rep. 2025 May 1;15(1):15288. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-00323-9.
4
Assessing the content and quality of GI bleeding information on Bilibili, TikTok, and YouTube: a cross-sectional study.评估哔哩哔哩、抖音和YouTube上胃肠道出血信息的内容和质量:一项横断面研究。
Sci Rep. 2025 Apr 28;15(1):14856. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-98364-7.
5
Analyzing dissemination, quality, and reliability of Chinese brain tumor-related short videos on TikTok and Bilibili: a cross-sectional study.分析TikTok和哔哩哔哩上与脑肿瘤相关的中文短视频的传播、质量和可靠性:一项横断面研究。
Front Neurol. 2024 Oct 18;15:1404038. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2024.1404038. eCollection 2024.
6
The quality and reliability of short videos about thyroid nodules on BiliBili and TikTok: Cross-sectional study.哔哩哔哩和抖音上关于甲状腺结节短视频的质量与可靠性:横断面研究
Digit Health. 2024 Oct 7;10:20552076241288831. doi: 10.1177/20552076241288831. eCollection 2024 Jan-Dec.
7
The status quo of short video as sources of health information on gastroesophageal reflux disease in China: a cross-sectional study.中国短视频作为胃食管反流病健康信息来源的现状:一项横断面研究。
Front Public Health. 2024 May 28;12:1400749. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1400749. eCollection 2024.
中国的TikTok和哔哩哔哩作为幽门螺杆菌信息来源:内容与质量分析
Helicobacter. 2023 Oct;28(5):e13007. doi: 10.1111/hel.13007. Epub 2023 Jul 15.
4
Online short videos promoting public breast cancer literacy: a pretest-posttest control group trial on efficiency, attitude, and influencing factors.在线短视频促进公众乳腺癌知识普及:一项关于效率、态度和影响因素的预试验-后试验对照试验
Front Public Health. 2023 Jun 15;11:1198780. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1198780. eCollection 2023.
5
YouTube as a source of information on Helicobacter pylori: Content and quality analysis.YouTube 作为幽门螺杆菌信息来源:内容和质量分析。
Helicobacter. 2023 Aug;28(4):e12971. doi: 10.1111/hel.12971. Epub 2023 Mar 21.
6
Is TikTok a high-quality source of information on thyroid cancer?TikTok 上有关甲状腺癌的信息质量高吗?
Endocrine. 2023 Aug;81(2):270-276. doi: 10.1007/s12020-023-03332-8. Epub 2023 Feb 25.
7
Infection: Current Status and Future Prospects on Diagnostic, Therapeutic and Control Challenges.感染:诊断、治疗及控制挑战的现状与未来展望
Antibiotics (Basel). 2023 Jan 17;12(2):191. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics12020191.
8
The Reliability and Quality of Short Videos as a Source of Dietary Guidance for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Cross-sectional Study.短视频作为炎症性肠病饮食指导来源的可靠性和质量:横断面研究。
J Med Internet Res. 2023 Feb 9;25:e41518. doi: 10.2196/41518.
9
Large-scale, national, family-based epidemiological study on infection in China: the time to change practice for related disease prevention.中国大规模、全国性、以家庭为基础的 感染流行病学研究:改变相关疾病预防实践的时机。
Gut. 2023 May;72(5):855-869. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2022-328965. Epub 2023 Jan 23.
10
TikTok and adolescent vision health: Content and information quality assessment of the top short videos related to myopia.TikTok 和青少年视力健康:与近视相关的热门短视频的内容和信息质量评估。
Front Public Health. 2023 Jan 4;10:1068582. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1068582. eCollection 2022.