Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Apr 29;24(1):1194.
doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-18687-4.

Myopia information on TikTok: analysis factors that impact video quality and audience engagement

Affiliations

Myopia information on TikTok: analysis factors that impact video quality and audience engagement

Shuai Ming et al. BMC Public Health. .

Abstract

Background: TikTok is emerging as a vital platform for health information dissemination. Despite myopia being a global public health issue, the high-quality myopia information shared by health educators often fails to go viral. It is imperative to analyze the factors influencing video quality and popularity, especially from diverse perspectives of researchers, health educators, and audiences.

Methods: TikTok myopia-related videos were retrieved using TikTok's default comprehensive search (DCS) and most liked search (MLS) strategies. Venn diagrams were employed to illustrate the relationships and commonalities between the two strategies across four sample sizes (top 200, 150, 100, and 50). Video metadata, including details such as creator information, production properties, upload time, video duration, and viewer engagement, were collected. Video quality was assessed using the DISCERN tool. Video content covering six aspects of myopia were evaluated. The impact of search strategies, video sample sizes, production properties, and myopia content on video quality and audience engagement was analyzed through single-factor or multi-factor analysis.

Results: DCS and MLS retrieval strategies, as well as varying sample sizes, resulted in differences in audience engagement for myopia videos (P < 0.039), while The DISCERN quality scores remained comparable (P > 0.221). Videos published by healthcare professionals (HCPs) and non-profit organizations (NPOs) were associated with high-quality (P ≤ 0.014) but comparatively lower popularity (P < 0.033). Videos that reported contents of risk factors, management, and outcomes showed high popularity (P < 0.018), while longer video duration (> 60s) exhibited the opposite trend (P < 0.032). Content on myopia evaluation (P ≤ 0.001) and management (P ≤ 0.022) and video duration were positively correlated with higher DISCERN quality.

Conclusion: Videos created by HCPs and NPOs deserve greater attention. Rather than pursuing entertaining effects, professional educators should emphasize producing concise, and high-quality myopia content that readily resonates with the audience and has the potential to go viral on the platform.

Keywords: Audience engagement; Information quality; Myopia; Public education; Social media; TikTok.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow chart diagram of the top-200 videos retrieved from DCS and MLS
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Venn diagrams and tables of inclusion numbers for two strategies (DCS and MLS). A Venn diagram of sample size 50. B Venn diagram of sample size 100. C Venn diagram of sample size 150. D Venn diagram of sample size 200. DCS: default comprehensive search strategy. MLS: “most liked” search strategy
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
The design and analytical framework of the study
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
The mean score of each myopia content domain

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Bourne R, Flaxman SR, Braithwaite T, et al. Magnitude, temporal trends, and projections of the global prevalence of blindness and distance and near vision impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2017;5(9):e888–e897. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(17)30293-0. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Morgan IG, French AN, Ashby RS, et al. The epidemics of myopia: aetiology and prevention. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2018;62:134–149. doi: 10.1016/j.preteyeres.2017.09.004. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Flaxman SR, Bourne R, Resnikoff S, et al. Global causes of blindness and distance vision impairment 1990–2020: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2017;5:e1221–e1234. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(17)30393-5. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Morgan IG, Ohno-Matsui K, Saw SM. Myopia. Lancet. 2012;379:1739–1748. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60272-4. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Holden BA, Fricke TR, Wilson DA, et al. Global Prevalence of Myopia and High Myopia and Temporal Trends from 2000 through 2050. Ophthalmology. 2016;123(5):1036–1042. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.01.006. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources