ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Public Health
Sec. Public Health Education and Promotion
Quality, Reliability, and Dissemination of Lung Cancer Information on Short-Video Platforms in China: A Cross-Platform Content Analysis of TikTok, Kwai, and Rednote
Provisionally accepted
- 1Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
- 2Affiliated Hospital of Chengde Medical University, Chengde, China
- 3Shanghai Institute of Materia Medica Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai, China
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Abstract Background: Short-video platforms have become major sources of health information in China, influencing public awareness and health behavior. However, the quality and dissemination patterns of lung cancer–related content across different platforms remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the informational quality, reliability, and engagement patterns of lung cancer short videos on three leading Chinese platforms. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive cross-sectional content analysis of 1,288 lung cancer-related videos retrieved from TikTok, Kwai and Rednote. Video quality was systematically evaluated using a multidimensional toolkit, including the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, Global Quality Scale (GQS), modified DISCERN (mDISCERN), and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT-U/A). We analyzed heterogeneity and correlations of quality and engagement metrics (likes, comments, shares, collections) across platforms, creator types, content themes, and presentation formats. Results: Overall information quality was suboptimal (Median JAMA=2; Median GQS=3). Significant heterogeneity (P < 0.001) was found, with TikTok demonstrating the highest quality, while Kwai exhibited the lowest quality but high engagement. Videos by physicians and news agencies demonstrated significantly higher reliability, understandability, and actionability than those by non-professional creators (P < 0.001). Disease knowledge videos—particularly those focusing on prevention, definitions, and risk factors—exhibited superior quality compared to personal experience or metastasis-related content. Expert monologue videos were the most common and effective presentation format. Engagement did not align linearly with quality. Patient vlogs and metastasis-related videos achieved higher interaction rates despite lower accuracy, indicating a “quality–engagement paradox.” Weak-to-moderate positive correlations were found between GQS and engagement, while PEMAT-A was negatively correlated with likes and comments. Conclusion: Marked disparities in the quality and dissemination of lung cancer–related short videos exist across Chinese platforms. Professional, evidence-based content enhances reliability, whereas emotional and visually driven content drives engagement. Strengthening algorithmic governance, metadata transparency, and expert involvement—alongside audience-centered, evidence-informed communication—may enhance the educational value and public health impact of short-video platforms. Keywords: Lung Cancer; Digital Health; Social Media; Health Communication; Short-Video; Health Information Quality
Keywords: lung cancer, Digital Health, Social Media, Health Communication, short-video, Health information quality
Received: 29 Aug 2025; Accepted: 17 Nov 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Zheng, Li, Jin, Shi and Deng. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Mengqi Deng, 112021040261@mail.ccmu.edu.cn
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.