| Literature DB >> 35812482 |
Kai Chen1,2, Li Zhou3, Rui Zhao1, Yuedi Tang1.
Abstract
Hearing aids are effective at improving listening ability and health-related quality of life. Recently, we observed that there are many hearing aids-related videos published on TikTok. However, the quality of the information they offer remains unstudied. This study aimed to evaluate the information quality of hearing aids videos on TikTok. We collected a sample of 155 hearing aids-related videos in Chinese and extracted the basic information. First, we identified the source of each video. Two independent raters assessed the quality of the information in the videos, using the PEMAT-A/V tool and DISCERN instrument. Regarding content, the results showed that the video contents on TikTok mainly about features, functionalities, and suggestions of purchase or fitting of hearing aids, while the information about the disadvantages and complications of hearing aids was limited. The overall quality of the hearing aids-related videos was acceptable on average, although the quality varies greatly depending on the type of source. Patients should be cautious in obtaining information about hearing aids on TikTok.Entities:
Keywords: hearing aids; hearing loss; information quality; internet health information; social media
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35812482 PMCID: PMC9257095 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.901976
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Figure 1Video screening procedure.
Characteristics of the videos (median and interquartile ranges).
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Health professionals | 67 (46.25–119.5) | 54.5 (23–171.75) | 8 (1–23.5) |
| Science communicators | 111 (82.5–144.5) | 15 (7.5–98.5) | 1 (0–10.5) |
| General users | 82 (59–126) | 81 (65–191.5) | 23 (15–54.5) |
| For-profit organizations | 82.5 (55.25–125.25) | 23.5 (9.25–57.25) | 4 (1–7.75) |
| Non-profit organizations | 100 (97.75–107.25) | 103 (57–165) | 6 (2.5–13.25) |
| News agencies | 109 (93–125) | 144 (72.5–270) | 4 (2–7.5) |
| Total | 81 (53.5–128.5) | 41 (12–116) | 6 (1–21) |
Health professionals were individuals who identify themselves as health professionals (e.g., doctors and hearing aid fitters).
Science communicators were individuals who are engaged in scientific communication.
General users: consumers.
For-profit organizations were organizations that pursue commercial interests.
Non-profit organizations were organizations operated for social benefit and public hospitals.
Figure 2Distribution of video content.
DISCERN and PEMAT-A/V scores of diabetes-related TikTok videos by source.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health professionals ( | 47.5 (41.88–60) | 87.5 (75–88.89) | 66.67 (33.33–100) | 81.82 (72.73–85.23) |
| Science communicators ( | 42.5 (40–47.5) | 87.5 (70–95) | 33.33 (33.33–66.67) | 75 (64.29–83.97) |
| General users ( | 37.5 (32.5–40) | 66.67 (50–77.78) | 0 (0–50) | 50 (37.5–75) |
| For-profit organizations ( | 42.5 (37.5–47.5) | 77.78 (75–88.89) | 66.67 (33.33–66.67) | 75 (64.39–83.33) |
| Non-profit organizations ( | 57.5 (57.5–61.88) | 100 (97.22–100) | 50 (33.33–75) | 83.97 (83.33–88.46) |
| News agencies ( | 57.5 (56.25–60) | 88.89 (88.89–94.44) | 33.33 (33.33–50) | 75 (75–83.33) |
| Total ( | 45 (40–52.5) | 87.5 (75–88.89) | 66.67 (33.33–66.67) | 75 (66.67–88.33) |
| <0.001 | 0.007 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
P-values were calculated with the Kruskal-Wallis H test.