TikTok as a Source of Health Information and Misinformation for Young Women in the United States: Survey Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background TikTok is one of the most-used and fastest-growing social media platforms in the world, and recent reports indicate that it has become an increasingly popular source of news and information in the United States. These trends have important implications for public health because an abundance of health information exists on the platform. Women are among the largest group of TikTok users in the United States and may be especially affected by the dissemination of health information on TikTok. Prior research has shown that women are not only more likely to look for information on the internet but are also more likely to have their health-related behaviors and perceptions affected by their involvement with social media. Objective We conducted a survey of young women in the United States to better understand their use of TikTok for health information as well as their perceptions of TikTok’s health information and health communication sources. Methods A web-based survey of US women aged 18 to 29 years (N=1172) was conducted in April-May 2023. The sample was recruited from a Qualtrics research panel and 2 public universities in the United States. Results The results indicate that the majority of young women in the United States who have used TikTok have obtained health information from the platform either intentionally (672/1026, 65.5%) or unintentionally (948/1026, 92.4%). Age (959/1026, 93.47%; r=0.30; P<.001), education (959/1026, 93.47%; ρ=0.10; P=.001), and TikTok intensity (ie, participants’ emotional connectedness to TikTok and TikTok’s integration into their daily lives; 959/1026, 93.47%; r=0.32; P<.001) were positively correlated with overall credibility perceptions of the health information. Nearly the entire sample reported that they think that misinformation is prevalent on TikTok to at least some extent (1007/1026, 98.15%), but a third-person effect was found because the young women reported that they believe that other people are more susceptible to health misinformation on TikTok than they personally are (t1025=21.16; P<.001). Both health professionals and general users were common sources of health information on TikTok: 93.08% (955/1026) of the participants indicated that they had obtained health information from a health professional, and 93.86% (963/1026) indicated that they had obtained health information from a general user. The respondents showed greater preference for health information from health professionals (vs general users; t1025=23.75; P<.001); the respondents also reported obtaining health information from health professionals more often than from general users (t1025=8.13; P<.001), and they were more likely to act on health information from health professionals (vs general users; t1025=12.74; P<.001). Conclusions The findings suggest that health professionals and health communication scholars need to proactively consider using TikTok as a platform for disseminating health information to young women because young women are obtaining health information from TikTok and prefer information from health professionals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it