Background Cervical cancer remains a serious global threat to women's health, with rising incidence and younger demographic impact, challenging reproductive health. Short-video platforms have become key public sources for health information due to digital health communication advances, yet the scientific accuracy and reliability of their cervical cancer content are widely questioned. A systematic evaluation of its quality and dissemination patterns is lacking. Objective This cross-sectional study assessed cervical cancer-related videos on YouTube, TikTok, and Bilibili, examining content breadth, information quality, and dissemination impact. Methods Videos were systematically retrieved in July 2025 using “cervical cancer” keywords across the three platforms. After applying inclusion/exclusion criteria, 201 videos were analyzed. Quality, reliability, and educational value were evaluated using the Global Quality Score (GQS), modified DISCERN, Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT—assessing understandability and actionability), and Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria. Platform differences were compared using the Kruskal–Wallis H test (significance p < 0.05). Results Platform differences emerged: YouTube videos demonstrated the highest quality (GQS mean 3.47 ± 1.06 vs. Bilibili 2.85 ± 0.89, TikTok 3.09 ± 0.75; p = 0.001) and significantly higher PEMAT understandability (76.94 ± 10.43 vs. TikTok 70.14 ± 11.07; p < 0.001). TikTok had the strongest dissemination power. Content coverage was inadequate: only 50.2% mentioned screening, 33.3% covered human papillomavirus vaccination, and a mere 8.0% recommended male vaccination. Creator expertise significantly influenced outcomes: Professionals (doctors/researchers) had higher JAMA authority scores and PEMAT actionability. Patient-created videos generated the highest interaction but scored lowest on quality metrics. Conclusion Cervical cancer information quality on short-video platforms is uneven. YouTube offers the highest overall quality, while TikTok achieves the widest reach but lacks content depth. Critical prevention information (e.g. male vaccination) has low coverage. Professional creators provide more reliable content but have limited reach. Platforms should enhance promotion of authoritative content and implement quality review mechanisms.
Liu et al. (Thu,) studied this question.