Videos in short video sharing platforms as a source of information on bipolar disorder: a cross-sectional content analysis study

Abstract

Background: Bipolar disorder is a prevalent mental health issue characterized by recurrent episodes of mania and depression, significantly impacting patients' quality of life. With the rise of short video sharing platforms, there is an urgent need to evaluate the quality and reliability of the medical information disseminated regarding this disorder.

Objective: This study aimed to assess the quality and reliability of videos related to bipolar disorder available on popular Chinese short video platforms, including TikTok, Kwai, Bilibili, WeChat, Xiaohongshu, and Baidu.

Methods: A cross-sectional content analysis was conducted in May 2025, using keywords related to bipolar disorder to retrieve relevant videos from selected platforms. The quality of the videos was evaluated using multiple standardized assessment tools, including the JAMA Benchmarking Criteria, GQS, modified DISCERN, PEMAT, and HONCODE.

Results: Significant differences in video quality and audience engagement metrics were observed across platforms. TikTok and Kwai had higher quality scores, while WeChat resulted in more comments. Most videos were created by medical professionals, although independent users also contributed content. Overall, video quality was inconsistent and not necessarily correlated with engagement metrics, highlighting the necessity for improved standards in disseminating health-related information on social media.

Conclusion: On Chinese short video platforms, clinical practitioners are the main creators of bipolar disorder-related content, but their scientific nature, production quality, and information transparency still need to be improved. It is suggested to improve the platform management, creator training, and algorithm optimization, so as to promote the improvement of public mental health literacy.

Keywords: bipolar disorder; content analysis; health information; quality and reliability assessment; short videos.

Figure 1

Search strategies for short videos on bipolar affective disorder.

Figure 2

The distribution of video authors in China.

Figure 3

The distribution of video years.

Figure 4

GQS scores, JAMA scores, modified DISCERN scores, PEMAT Understandability score, Actionability score, and HONCODE scores of short videos on bipolar affective disorder on different platforms (TikTok, Kwai, WeChat, Xiaohongshu, Bilibili, and Baidu). *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. ns: not significant at p ≥ 0.05.

Figure 5

GQS scores, JAMA scores, modified DISCERN scores, PEMAT Understandability score, Actionability score, and HONCODE scores from different sources of videos related to bipolar affective disorder. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. ns: not significant at p ≥ 0.05.

Figure 6

GQS scores, JAMA scores, modified DISCERN scores, PEMAT Understandability score, Actionability score, and HONCODE scores for bipolar affective disorder-related videos from different medical specialties. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. ns: not significant at p ≥ 0.05.

Figure 7

GQS scores, JAMA scores, modified DISCERN scores, PEMAT Understandability score, Actionability score, and HONCODE scores for bipolar affective disorder-related videos with different content. **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. *ns: not significant at p ≥ 0.05.

Figure 8

GQS scores, JAMA scores, modified DISCERN scores, PEMAT Understandability score, Actionability score, and HONCODE scores for bipolar affective disorder-related videos for different disease knowledge. *p < 0.05. *ns: not significant at p ≥ 0.05.

Figure 9

GQS scores, JAMA scores, modified DISCERN scores, PEMAT Understandability score, Actionability score, and HONCODE scores for bipolar affective disorder-related videos for different presentation forms. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. *ns: not significant at p ≥ 0.05.

Figure 10

Spearman correlation analyses between video variables and between video variables and GQS scores, JAMA scores, modified DISCERN scores, PEMAT Understandability score, Actionability score, and HONCODE scores. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001.