Do you have depression? A summative content analysis of mental health-related content on TikTok
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background TikTok is a global social media platform with over 1 billion active users. Presently, there are few data on how TikTok users navigate the platform for mental health purposes and the content they view. Objective This study aims to understand the patterns of mental health-related content on TikTok and assesses the accuracy and quality of the advice and information provided. Methods We performed a summative content analysis on the top 1000 TikTok videos with the hashtag #mentalhealth between October 12 and 16, 2021. Six content themes were developed to code the data: (1) a personal story, perspective, or confessional, (2) advice and information, (3) emoting, (4) references to death, (5) references to science or research, and (6) a product or service for sale. Advice and information were further assessed by clinical experts. Results A total of 970 mental health-related videos were pulled for our analysis ( n = 30 removed due to non-English content). The most prevalent content themes included a personal story, perspective, or confessional ( n = 574), advice and information ( n = 319), emoting ( n = 198), references to death ( n = 128). Advice and information were considered misleading in 33.0% of videos ( n = 106), with misleading content performing better. Few videos included references to scientific evidence or research ( n = 37). Conclusion Healthcare practitioners and researchers may consider increasing their presence on the platform to promote the dissemination of evidence-based information to a wider and more youth-targeted population. Interventions to reduce the amount of misinformation on the platform and increase people's ability to discern between anecdotal and evidence-based information are also warranted.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".