Quality Assessment of Shock Videos on Video Sharing Platforms: Cross-Sectional Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: As a highly lethal circulatory failure syndrome, the pathophysiological mechanisms of shock can lead to multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS), which significantly increases the demand for intensive care and the length of hospitalization. There is therefore an urgent need for the public to be informed about health-related issues. In recent years, videos have become a significant medium for health education, and this study aimed to evaluate shock-related videos on video sharing platforms. Objective: The objective of this study is to identify the top 100 videos related to impact on TikTok, Bilibili, and Xiaohongshu. These videos will then be assessed in terms of their effectiveness and credibility. Following this evaluation, relevant recommendations will be provided. Methods: The study included a search for videos related to shock on the three video-sharing platforms: TikTok, Bilibili, and Xiaohongshu. The Global Quality Score (GQS) and mDISCERN tools were used to evaluate the credibility and quality of the videos, in addition to employing the Patient Education Materials Evaluation Tool for Audiovisual Content (PEMAT-A/V). Finally, the video was evaluated by examining disease definitions, clinical manifestations, risk factors, assessment, management, and outcomes. Results: A total of 244 videos (TikTok:87, Bilibili:80, Xiaohongshu:77）were retrieved from the three platforms. The overall video quality was found to be moderately low. The majority of videos were uploaded by health advocates (n=102, 41.8%) and health professionals (n=98, 40.1%). The individual video sources of the GQS were of lower quality (1-3), the mDISCERN scores were moderate (2-4), and the quality of individual users is higher than that of organizational users. The PEMAT A/V scores were as follows: in the overall comprehensibility evaluation, 91% (220) videos of the scores were above 70%; in the actionability evaluation, 65% (157) videos of the scores were below 70%. It should be noted that the actionability scores for different video sources were generally low. In 172 videos (70.4%), the definition of shock and its clinical manifestations were explained in detail, while in 137 videos (56.1%), the definition of shock and its clinical manifestations were also clearly explained. The majority of videos provided a relatively comprehensive explanation of the definition of shock and its clinical signs and symptoms. Conclusions: Our study have demonstrated that the content and information quality of shock videos is unsatisfactory, as a general rule. This underscores the necessity for pertinent regulatory bodies to oversee the caliber of health-related videos, and for content creators to enhance the quality of their content.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».