Background Chikungunya fever (CHIKF) is an arboviral disease caused by the Chikungunya virus, which has increasingly emerged as a global public health concern, particularly in regions like China. Short video platforms such as TikTok and Bilibili have become vital channels for disseminating health information. Given the significant reach of these platforms, it is essential to evaluate the quality and reliability of videos related to CHIKF, ensuring that the public receives accurate and credible information. Methods This cross-sectional study collected the top 100 videos from each platform, ranked by comprehensive sorting. Video quality was assessed using four validated tools: the Global Quality Scale (GQS), modified DISCERN (mDISCERN), the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks, and the Video Information and Quality Index (VIQI), which evaluate educational, informational, and audiovisual quality. Results A total of 166 videos were analyzed. Overall scores were at a moderate level: 3.00 (IQR: 2.00-4.00), mDISCERN 3.00 (IQR: 2.00-4.00), JAMA 2.00 (IQR: 2.00-2.00), and VIQI 10.00 (IQR: 8.00-13.00). Compared with Bilibili, TikTok videos demonstrated significantly higher user engagement, including likes, comments, and shares (all p <0.05). In terms of quality, TikTok videos showed better information flow and significantly higher VIQI scores ( p <0.05). Videos uploaded by medical professionals achieved significantly higher GQS, mDISCERN, and JAMA scores compared with those uploaded by general users ( p <0.05). Conclusions This study found that the overall quality, reliability, and transparency of CHIKF-related videos remain suboptimal. Videos uploaded by medical professionals performed best across multiple quality indicators. These findings highlight the need to strengthen content oversight on platforms and encourage medical professionals to actively participate in the creation of CHIKF-related science videos to improve the accuracy of public health information.
Jv et al. (Sun,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: