Next Article in Journal
The Impact of Perceived Timeliness of Information Release on Subjective Well-Being: A Heterogeneity Perspective
Previous Article in Journal
Public Service Media and Platformization: What Role Does EU Regulation Play?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Journalism and Media
Volume 5
Issue 3
10.3390/journalmedia5030088
journalmedia-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Research on Health Topics Communicated through TikTok: A Systematic Review of the Literature

by
Emily A. Sattora
1,
Brian C. Ganeles
1,
Morgan E. Pierce
1 and
Roger Wong
1,2,*
1
Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Norton College of Medicine, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA
2
Department of Geriatrics, Norton College of Medicine, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Journal. Media 2024, 5(3), 1395-1412; https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia5030088
Submission received: 9 August 2024 / Revised: 18 September 2024 / Accepted: 18 September 2024 / Published: 21 September 2024
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
TikTok has more than 1.5 billion users globally. Health and wellness content on the application increased by more than 600% in 2021. This systematic review seeks to summarize which fields within medicine have embraced researching health communication on the TikTok platform and the most common measures reported within this literature. Research questions include what categories of health topics on TikTok are investigated in the literature, trends in topics by year, and types of outcomes reported. Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and Ovid MEDLINE databases were searched in March 2024. Eligible studies met four criteria: (1) investigated human health topics on TikTok; (2) conducted in the United States; (3) published in English; and (4) published in a peer-reviewed journal. Of the 101 included studies, 50.5% (N = 51) discussed non-surgical specialties, 9.9% (N = 10) discussed topics within surgery, and 11.9% (N = 12) discussed COVID-19. The number of papers referencing non-surgical topics spiked in 2023, and no increase was seen in the number of COVID-19 papers over time. Most papers reported a number of interactions, and papers about mental health were least likely to report accuracy. Our findings highlight several health topics with a wide breadth of research dedicated to them, such as dermatology and COVID-19, and highlight areas for future research, such as the intersection of cancer and TikTok. Findings may be influential in the fields of medicine and healthcare research by informing health policy and targeted prevention efforts. This review reveals the need for future policies that focus on the role and expectations of the healthcare worker in health communication on social media. Implications for clinical practice include the need for providers to consider an individual’s perception of health and illness, given the wide variety of information available on social media applications such as TikTok. This review was pre-registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024529182).

1. Introduction

TikTok is a short-form video-sharing social media platform that holds promise as a medical and public health tool because of its ability to target specific users with content based on their demonstrated interests. For the public, TikTok can be a tool for conveying health and first-aid information, whereas, for medical students and professionals, it can be a tool for teaching or refreshing high-yield concepts and life-saving procedures.
Effective health communication is a vital aspect of public health. Social media has become an emerging source of health information and misinformation in the United States (Moorhead et al. 2013). Among prominent social media sites, TikTok has recently skyrocketed in popularity and users, with more than 1.5 billion users globally (Iqbal 2024). Health and wellness content, in particular, increased by more than 600% in 2021, with more than 3.8 million healthcare providers active on the application (Iqbal 2024). Furthermore, TikTok users are younger than the overall population, with 50% of active users falling between the ages of 13 and 24 (Iqbal 2024). A survey conducted in 2024 also found that among respondents from Generation Z, 1 in 3 reported using TikTok as their main source of health information (Belaveshkin 2024). Unfortunately, prior research has shown that online health information can be inaccurate, with some studies finding posts with health misinformation at rates as high as 87% (Suarez-Lledo and Alvarez-Galvez 2021). This statistic is particularly concerning as TikTok has a large proportion of young users who are more vulnerable to being influenced by this content (Comp et al. 2020).
Recent literature has explored the effectiveness of TikTok as a tool for public health communication on a wide array of health topics, including mental health, diabetes, and sexual and reproductive health (Basch et al. 2022d; Kong et al. 2021; Wu et al. 2023). One study found that mental health TikTok often focused on categories such as general mental health, personal experiences, relationships, depression/anxiety/suicide (Basch et al. 2022d). They also found that comments left on TikTok about mental health often offered support or validation, described similar experiences, and shared ways to cope (Basch et al. 2022d). Another study on diabetes content on TikTok found that healthcare professionals create/post the majority (69.3%) of posts about diabetes, and most of these posts discuss how to manage diabetes (67.8%) and outcomes of diabetes (66.8%) (Kong et al. 2021). Finally, recent research on sexual and reproductive health topics on TikTok found that creators discussing IUDs were often female-identifying (88.8%), and few were healthcare professionals (36.7%) (Wu et al. 2023). A large proportion of posts were negative experiences of IUD use (39.8%), and almost all posts highlighted pain and IUD side effects (Wu et al. 2023). The selected studies demonstrate the wide variety of health topics discussed on TikTok and highlight the need for a review that summarizes the current state of the literature regarding health information on TikTok.
The primary aim of this systematic review is to summarize the state of the literature regarding TikTok health research by synthesizing available literature into categories of health topics and medical specialties. Secondary aims include assessing trends of topics by year, the outcomes reported by each paper, and the relationships between variables reported and health topics discussed. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first review of its nature to explore the relationship between health and TikTok in the academic literature. Preliminary searches across multiple databases did not reveal any existing identical reviews on this topic.
This research has several important implications. It is both useful and necessary to know the current state of the literature regarding health topics on TikTok, particularly as a means to guide the development of future research and public health interventions. By understanding which specialties of medicine currently dominate research on TikTok as a health communication tool, gaps in the research can be identified and filled with the information learned from the established clusters of research. Furthermore, this paper serves to participate in several discussions regarding the use of social media as a health communication tool. More specifically, this review serves as a basis for exploring the current literature available on the usefulness, accuracy, and scope of existing research on health topics on TikTok. While this study encompasses several topics in medicine, the main goal of this review lies within the field of health communication. A wide variety of audiences may benefit from this research, including but not limited to academic researchers, public health practitioners, and laypersons. This review may also serve as a guide for future research on TikTok-mediated health communication by revealing what health topics have limited amounts of published literature dedicated to them. Furthermore, it is the hope of the authors that this research can be used as a means for advocacy for health policy interventions concerning social media, health communication, and combating the spread of health misinformation. The materials and methods section that follows will describe the search strategy, screening process, and data extraction process of this review. The results section will elaborate on topic distribution, year, content, and subcontent. Finally, the discussion and conclusion sections will discuss the implications of this review in a broader context.

2. Materials and Methods

This systematic review determined the breadth of the literature on health-related TikTok posts in the United States by thoroughly searching several major databases and collecting broad information on the topics and measures reported by relevant primary research articles. The conduct of this systematic review was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) (Page et al. 2021a, 2021b). The study population was TikTok users in the United States, and the aim of this systematic review was to understand the state of the literature describing health-related topics these users may encounter on the platform.

2.1. Search Strategy

Papers included in this systematic review were primary studies describing human health content posted to TikTok that users in the United States might encounter. Limiting the scope of this systematic review to studies describing content that TikTok users in the United States might encounter was done because the content available to users varies by country (Yang 2022). To ensure the articles included in this systematic review reported only on content available to users in the United States, papers were excluded if they were authored by researchers not affiliated with U.S. institutions or if the paper did not discuss health content on TikTok in the context of U.S. culture or the U.S. healthcare system. In cases where some authors were affiliated with a mix of U.S. and non-U.S. institutions, their papers were excluded only if the author who collected the data from TikTok was affiliated with a non-U.S. institution. Papers were also excluded if they studied the effects that viewing TikTok posts may have on users, as this review was concerned with the types of content on TikTok being studied, not the effects of this content on users. Any paper that was not in English, that did not report primary data, or was not peer-reviewed was also excluded.
Relevant papers were identified by searching Scopus, Embase, CINAHL (via EBSCO), and MEDLINE (via OVID). Generally, each database was searched for research articles in English from the United States and containing both “Tiktok” and “Health” as keywords, with each keyword truncated to maximize results. Specific queries for each database can be found in Appendix A. Scopus returned 167 articles, Embase returned 84 articles, CINAHL returned 41 articles, and MEDLINE returned 101 articles. All searches were performed in March 2024. This review was pre-registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024529182).

2.2. Screening Process

EndNote was used to automatically flag 146 search results as duplicates, which were manually verified by the authors before each was removed. This process left 247 unique results. The abstracts of each result were then screened by the authors to ensure each result met the inclusion criteria without any exclusion criteria. Using the software Covidence, two authors screened each abstract and voted on whether to include or exclude the result from further screening. Any conflicting votes were resolved at the discretion of a third author. Abstract screening identified 98 results as ineligible for inclusion. The full text of the remaining 149 results was then screened by the authors to ensure each result met the inclusion criteria without any exclusion criteria. Using the software Rayyan, two authors screened each full text and voted on whether to include or exclude the result from the final sample. Again, any conflicting votes were resolved at the discretion of a third author. Full-text screening identified 48 more results as being ineligible for inclusion. Of these, 13 were excluded for reporting on TikTok content from outside the United States, 11 were excluded for not being peer-reviewed journal articles, 8 were excluded for not containing primary data, 8 were excluded for reporting on the effects of viewing TikTok content rather than describing TikTok content itself, 7 were excluded for studying content only on social media platforms that were not TikTok, and 1 was excluded for reporting outcomes that were inconsistent with the goals of this research. Full-text screening resulted in a final sample size of 101 research articles. The process of reaching this final sample is summarized in the PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 1). Table 1 shows a full listing of all included articles, along with their key features. “Topic” refers to the general topic under which the papers were categorized for analysis, whereas “subtopic” provides more specific information as to the content of the paper.

2.3. Data Extraction

From the final sample of research articles describing TikTok posts that are related to human health and accessible in the United States, key features of each article were recorded. The data extracted from each article includes the year of publication, the medical field of focus, and the characteristics of the TikTok content described. To keep data organized, a standardized data extraction form was created using Google Forms. Data from each article was extracted by two authors working independently, and any inconsistencies were resolved by review from a third author.
Specific extracted data was condensed into broader categories to better communicate findings. Topics were delineated by medical specialty, as healthcare professionals tend to be most concerned with research within their field, and this method of categorizing by medical specialty allows for comparison between different fields, offering a means of comparison not found in primary studies. Papers were marked as reporting on the “number of interactions” if they reported the number of views, likes, comments, shares, or favorites among the TikTok posts they described. Papers were marked as reporting on the “diversity of sub-content” if they described TikTok posts within the article’s medical specialty of focus by the counts or frequencies of various topics discussed within the posts. Papers were marked as reporting on the “characteristics of video creator” if they reported on the age, gender, race, role, occupation, political affiliation, or any other personal characteristics of the user who posted each analyzed post. Papers were marked as reporting on the “accuracy” of TikTok content if they used validated measures, such as PEMAT or DISCERN scores, or if they used feedback from experts in the field to describe the validity of the information disseminated in the analyzed posts. Papers were marked as reporting on “broad qualitative themes” if they used grounded theory or any other inductive frameworks to describe broad themes observed among the TikTok posts they analyzed. The categorizations for the types of outcomes reported in each study were inductively constructed by the authors’ consensus based on common trends observed between the studies. Condensing the types of outcomes reported can inform what measures are necessary to report in future research to allow for standardized comparisons to be made between different publications. The implications of each extracted category are presented further in the discussion section. Quality assessments for each of the included articles were unnecessary because this systematic review is concerned only with the topics of each study and the types of data each study chose to report, not the data itself or its validity.

3. Results

Of the 247 unique studies identified, 98 studies were excluded during title/abstract screening, 48 were excluded during full-text screening, and 101 studies were deemed eligible (Figure 1).

3.1. Topic Distribution

Of the 101 studies included, 51 (50.5%) focused on non-surgical specialties. Within the papers discussing non-surgical specialties, 12 (23.5%) focused on Dermatology, 9 (17.6%) focused on Gynecology and Obstetrics, and 7 (13.7%) focused on Otolaryngology. Of the 51 studies that examined non-surgical specialties, topics included audiology, gastroenterology, infectious disease, ophthalmology, orthopedics, radiology, and urology. Twelve studies (11.9%) concentrated on information regarding COVID-19. Ten studies (9.9%) examined surgical specialties. The majority of the studies on surgery focused on information about plastic surgery (n = 3, 30.0%), neurosurgery (n = 2, 20.0%), and gender-affirming surgery (n = 2, 20.0%). Ten studies (9.9%) focused on mental health topics, and 3 (3.0%) concentrated on cancer types. Fifteen studies (14.9%) examined health topics classified as other, such as sexual health (n = 4, 26.7%) and men’s health (n = 3, 20.0%). A complete summarization of data on topic distribution is presented in Table 2.

3.2. Topics by Year

A visualization of the distribution and the number of study topics by year is presented in Figure 2. The greatest number of studies about TikTok were published in 2023 (n = 50). Non-surgical specialties made up the largest number of studies (n = 51) and had the largest range of years within studies published about TikTok. In 2021, 5 studies were published about non-surgical specialties, 11 were published in 2022, 25 were published in 2023, and 10 were published in 2024. Studies that were categorized as Other had the smallest range of publication years, with 8 studies being published in 2022 and 7 in 2023. Notably, despite most of the public attention relating to COVID-19 occurring prior to 2022, the number of studies focusing on TikTok posts related to COVID-19 remained the same between 2021 and 2023 (n = 4, n = 4, n = 4). Similarly, publication years for studies examining cancer were evenly spread between the years 2021 to 2023 (n = 1, n = 1, n = 1). Studies categorized as Surgery or Mental health had the greatest number of studies published in 2023 (n = 7, n = 6, respectively), with the remaining studies split between the remaining publication years.

3.3. Reported Outcomes

Across all health topics, studies reported outcomes that could be divided into six distinct categories: number of interactions (90.1%, n = 91), diversity of sub-content (84.2%, n = 85), characteristics of video creator (77.2%, n = 78), accuracy (45.5% n = 46), other qualities of video (44.6%, n = 45), and broad qualitative themes (23.8%, n = 24) (Figure 3).
The third category, characteristics of video creators, reported in most papers, was broken down and summarized by characteristics reported in Figure 4. The characteristic most often reported was whether the video creator was a healthcare worker or layperson (80.8%, n = 63), as most studies were concerned with the source of information provided. Beyond whether the creator was a healthcare worker, characteristics also reported were the specific occupation of the video creator (52.6%, n = 41), gender (33.3%, n = 26), race (14.1%, n = 11), age (11.5%, n = 9), and political affiliation (1.3%, n = 1).

3.4. Reported Outcomes Stratified by Topic

Of the six categories of reported outcomes, the number of interactions was the most frequently reported measure across all topic categories (Non-surgical specialties = 86.3%, n = 44; Surgical specialties = 100%, n = 10; Cancer = 100% n = 3; COVID-19 = 91.7%, n = 11; Mental Health = 90.0%, n = 9; Other = 93.3%, n = 14) (Figure 5). Across each topic category, diversity of sub-content was also reported frequently (Non-surgical specialties = 84.3%, n = 43; Surgical specialties = 90.0%, n = 9; Cancer = 100.0% n = 3; COVID-19 = 91.7%, n = 11; Mental Health=70.0%, n = 7; Other=80.0%, n = 12). Non-surgical specialties, which make up the majority of studies, are likely to report the number of interactions (86.3%), diversity of sub-content (84.3%), characteristics of video creator (90.2%), and accuracy (51.0%), but are less likely to report other qualities of the video (43.1%) or broad qualitative themes (11.7%). Studies that examined COVID-19 TikTok posts were less likely to report the characteristics of video creators (41.7%) but were more likely to report other qualities of the video (91.7%). The reporting of other qualities of the video varies more often depending on the topic area than other reported outcomes, being reported in 91.7% of papers about COVID-19 but in only 10.0% of papers about surgical specialties. Studies concentrated on mental health were most likely to report broad qualitative themes (60.0%) compared to quantitative data such as Accuracy (20.0%).

4. Discussion

TikTok is a vibrant and growing social media platform, with millions of users accessing the application daily (Singh 2024). Previous systematic reviews have described the use of TikTok as a platform for health communication in relation to specific subspecialties of medicine, such as plastic surgery and dermatology (Zargaran et al. 2023; Barrutia et al. 2022). Other studies have looked at the impact of TikTok on user health, such as examining how over-use of the application can lead to mental health distress in teenagers (McCashin and Murphy 2023). The present review summarized the current status of the literature to identify what health topics are being explored and areas where more research is needed. The findings of this review have many implications for healthcare across the areas of health communication, public health, and health equity.
This review identified several medical specialties with a large number of papers dedicated to them, such as dermatology, obstetrics, and gynecology. Studies exploring the relationship between TikTok and areas such as cancer, radiology, and infectious diseases were surprisingly limited. This reveals the need for more research in the intersection of these areas. There have also been significant changes in topic representation over the years. This area of research is relatively new, with the earliest recorded papers being published in 2021. A large spike was seen in the number of papers published on non-surgical subspecialties in the year 2023, with 25 papers meeting the inclusion criteria for that year. This demonstrates an increased interest in the intersections between non-surgical topics and social media. Interestingly, the number of relevant papers published on COVID-19 has not increased over time. Rather, the steady decrease in publications from 2023 to 2024 demonstrates the decreased urgency seen in COVID-19 research over time.
Regarding the variables reported in the included studies, most studies reported the number of interactions (including likes, comments, shares, and views) seen on relevant videos. In relation to other popular social media sites such as Facebook and Instagram, TikTok has the highest engagement rate per post, coming in at 4.25% in 2022, as compared to Instagram’s 0.6% rate and Facebook’s 0.15% rate (Singh 2024). This sheds light on the importance of research in this field, given the platform’s broad reach, but also raises questions as to the utility of a number of interactions as a reported variable. In 2023, users viewed 625 million videos in one internet minute (Singh 2024). This implies that the number of interactions on any given post is constantly changing as time passes, despite the stagnant nature of the number of interactions as a reported result. Another aspect to consider is TikTok’s algorithm, which controls what videos are displayed to each viewer on the popular “for you” page. Video recommendations are based on video information, such as captions and hashtags, as well as a user’s previous interaction patterns (other videos that one has liked or shared) (TikTok 2020). This highly influences the popularity that certain content topics are allowed to gain.
Another common variable reported by included studies was the characteristics of the video creators, with over half of the papers reporting the video poster’s demographic information. Interestingly, while 80% of these studies reported if the content creator was a healthcare worker or not, less than 40% of included papers reported the creator’s gender, and less than 20% reported their race. Statistics show that while more men use TikTok than women, 55.3% of content creators are female (Singh 2024). The lack of studies that reported these variables is surprising when considering the importance that gender and race have on one’s perception of content. Psychological theories such as consensual validation and cognitive evaluation explain this phenomenon, detailing that individuals feel more comfortable with people who have the same physical traits as themselves (Hampton et al. 2018). This comfortability can make individuals more receptive to and trustworthy of health information being relayed by people of certain races or genders than others.
Variables reported by each study were also analyzed based on the health topic discussed. Interestingly, papers about COVID-19 were more likely to report other qualities about the video (such as the creator’s affect, sound used, or props used) than papers about any other health topic. This finding reflects the emphasis placed on the effect of COVID-19 health messaging. Some studies have found that positive messaging that focuses on solidarity increases the receptiveness of individuals to COVID-19 messaging (Chang et al. 2022). Others have noted the effects that variables like music and animation can have on enhancing the educational effectiveness of COVID-19 health information, specifically (Lutomia et al. 2022).
Another important finding was the likelihood that a paper reported the accuracy of the content within the included videos. Papers covering surgical specialties and cancer were the most likely to report findings around content accuracy, and papers concerning mental health topics were the least likely. This reveals an interesting divide and raises concerns about the ongoing stigma associated with mental health disorders. It has been shown that healthcare providers often engage in discriminatory behaviors and practices that lead to barriers to accessing equitable mental health care (Ungar et al. 2015). Additionally, these stigmatizations have been seen across social media, with implications on an individual’s motivations to seek treatment (Competiello et al. 2023). Given that more than 3.8 million healthcare providers create content on TikTok, this massive platform creates opportunities for the dissemination of valuable health information as well as harmful misinformation (Iqbal 2024). Future studies concerned with mental health topics on TikTok should prioritize the accuracy of content included in their results.
These findings highlight several significant implications of this research. First, this study can be used as a tool to inform future research on this topic. This study highlighted several health topics with an abundance of research dedicated to them, as well as many with little to no research papers published. Furthermore, this research can be used as a tool when designing future studies around this topic. The thorough summarization of the outcomes reported by existing studies can be used to guide researchers on popular and effective methods for evaluating short-form video content. Researchers can also refer to these findings to create unique study designs that focus on outcomes that have been reported by a smaller number of papers. Another important implication of this research is that it influences public health efforts. Social media communication is a popular form of public health intervention and can be a powerful tool for reaching large amounts of people, especially niche populations such as youth. Existing research on the way that health topics are presented on TikTok, as well as who is presenting them, can be a useful tool for guiding these public health efforts. One way this research can contribute to these efforts is by highlighting where there are greater or lesser volumes of evidence related to health communication on TikTok, which can assist in formulating evidence-based public health research. Additionally, this research may serve as a guide for future public health interventions aimed toward the communication of health information specifically to TikTok’s audiences. This review has revealed what topics are being most frequently explored by academic entities, as well as which related aspects are being prioritized in research. For example, based on our findings, one may find it most useful to focus an intervention on the popular topic of dermatology and may make an effort to ensure accuracy in content distributed by healthcare professionals on TikTok. Furthermore, interventions focused on the education of healthcare professionals may use these findings to justify the importance of the inclusion of social media as a means of health communication and dissemination, as our conclusions reveal that this is a topic that is prevalent and growing within the scientific literature. This paper summarized the existing research that is available and may be helpful for these means.

5. Conclusions

This review outlined the current state of the literature around the intersection of health and TikTok. The findings from this review have several implications for healthcare, including informing future public health communication efforts and ensuring health equity across social media. Strengths of this study include the robust nature of content search and the wide variety of reported results. Possible limitations include the exclusion of studies published outside of the United States and the lack of a formal quality assessment. Additionally, the authors note that these findings may not be representative of the entirety of the literature available on health topics on TikTok nor all-encompassing of the entirety of health topics actually discussed on TikTok. Suggestions for future research include focusing on health topics with limited available literature, such as audiology and cancer, and prioritizing analysis of content creator demographics and video accuracy.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.A.S., B.C.G. and M.E.P.; methodology, E.A.S., B.C.G. and M.E.P.; formal analysis, E.A.S., B.C.G. and M.E.P.; data curation, E.A.S., B.C.G. and M.E.P.; writing—original draft preparation, E.A.S., B.C.G. and M.E.P.; writing—review and editing, E.A.S., B.C.G., M.E.P. and R.W.; supervision, R.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Scopus
“tiktok*” AND “health*”
 
Embase
“tiktok*” AND “health*” AND (‘article’/it OR ‘article in press’/it) AND [english]/lim
AND ‘united states’:cy.
 
CINAHL
“tiktok*” AND “health*”
 
MEDLINE
“tiktok*” AND “health*”

References

  1. Abdelnour, Alyssa, Nicholas Comeau, and Kurt Ashack. 2023. Skin of Color Representation for Atopic Dermatitis on TikTok: Cross-Sectional Analysis. JMIR Dermatology 6: e48635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Abramson, Max, Nathan Feiertag, Darius Javidi, Mustufa Babar, Stacy Loeb, and Kara Watts. 2023. Accuracy of Prostate Cancer Screening Recommendations for High-risk Populations on YouTube and TikTok. BJUI Compass 4: 206–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Aflatooni, Justin O., Robert Loving, Brendan M. Holderread, Shari R. Liberman, and Joshua D. Harris. 2023. #Scoliosis: An Analysis of Patient Perception of Scoliosis on TikTok. Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings 36: 671–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Alter, Isaac L., Sara A. Charney, William E. Karle, Hayley Born, and Alexander Chern. 2024. An Evaluation of Quality, Reliability, and Accuracy of Vocal Health Content on TikTok. Journal of Voice, 38218688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Anastasio, Albert T., Troy Q. Tabarestani, Kian Bagheri, Mikhail A. Bethell, Isabel Prado, Joshua R. Taylor, and Samuel B. Adams. 2023. A New Trend in Social Media and Medicine: The Poor Quality of Videos Related to Ankle Sprain Exercises on TikTok. Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics 8: 247301142311711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Aragon-Guevara, Diego, Grace Castle, Elisabeth Sheridan, and Giacomo Vivanti. 2023. The Reach and Accuracy of Information on Autism on TikTok. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Babar, Mustufa, Justin Loloi, Rutul D. Patel, Sandeep Singh, Umair Azhar, Pedro Maria, Alexander Small, and Kara Watts. 2022. Cross-sectional and Comparative Analysis of Videos on Erectile Dysfunction Treatment on YouTube and TikTok. Andrologia 54: e14392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Baghdadi, Jonathan D., K. C. Coffey, Rachael Belcher, James Frisbie, Naeemul Hassan, Danielle Sim, and Rena D. Malik. 2023. #Coronavirus on TikTok: User Engagement with Misinformation as a Potential Threat to Public Health Behavior. JAMIA Open 6: ooad013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Barrutia, Leire, Jesús Vega-Gutiérrez, and Alba Santamarina-Albertos. 2022. Benefits, Drawbacks, and Challenges of Social Media Use in Dermatology: A Systematic Review. Journal of Dermatological Treatment 33: 2738–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Basch, Corey H., Bhavya Yalamanchili, Joseph Fera, and Sandhya Narayanan. 2024. Most Liked #monkeypox Videos on TikTok: Implications for Infection Control. American Journal of Infection Control 52: 123–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Basch, Corey H., Grace C. Hillyer, and Erin T. Jacques. 2022a. Professionally Created Content Related to HPV Vaccination on TikTok. Frontiers in Digital Health 4: 888302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Basch, Corey H., Grace C. Hillyer, Bhavya Yalamanchili, and Aldean Morris. 2022b. How TikTok Is Being Used to Help Individuals Cope with Breast Cancer: Cross-Sectional Content Analysis. JMIR Cancer 8: e42245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Basch, Corey H., Joseph Fera, Alessia Pellicane, and Charles E. Basch. 2022c. Handwashing Videos on TikTok during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Potential for Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Infection, Disease & Health 27: 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Basch, Corey H., Joseph Fera, Isabela Pierce, and Charles E Basch. 2021a. Promoting Mask Use on TikTok: Descriptive, Cross-Sectional Study. JMIR Public Health and Surveillance 7: e26392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Basch, Corey H., Lorie Donelle, Joseph Fera, and Christie Jaime. 2022d. Deconstructing TikTok Videos on Mental Health: Cross-Sectional, Descriptive Content Analysis. JMIR Formative Research 6: e38340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Basch, Corey H., Zoe Meleo-Erwin, Joseph Fera, Christie Jaime, and Charles E. Basch. 2021b. A Global Pandemic in the Time of Viral Memes: COVID-19 Vaccine Misinformation and Disinformation on TikTok. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics 17: 2373–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Belaveshkin, Andrew. 2024. Healthy or Not? Attitudes to Wellness on TikTok. May 31. Available online: https://www.zing.coach/fitness-library/healthy-or-not-attitudes-to-wellness-on-tiktok (accessed on 27 June 2024).
  18. Bethell, Mikhail A., Albert T. Anastasio, Joshua R. Taylor, Troy Q. Tabarestani, Christopher S. Klifto, and Oke Anakwenze. 2023a. Evaluating the Distribution, Quality, and Educational Value of Videos Related to Shoulder Instability Exercises on the Social Media Platform TikTok. JAAOS: Global Research and Reviews 7: e23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bethell, Mikhail A., Albert T. Anastasio, Kwabena Adu-Kwarteng, Troy Q. Tabarestani, and Brian C. Lau. 2023b. Analyzing the Quality, Reliability, and Educational Value of ACL Rehabilitation Exercises on TikTok: A Cross-Sectional Study. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine 11: 23259671231218668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Bharat, Nisha, Morgan Sandelski, Samantha Cerasiello, and Agnes Hurtuk. 2023. TikTok Influence on Rates of Tonsillectomies for Tonsil Stones. Cureus 15: e37957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Boatman, Dannell D., Susan Eason, Mary Ellen Conn, and Stephenie K. Kennedy-Rea. 2022. Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Messaging on TikTok: Social Media Content Analysis. Health Promotion Practice 23: 382–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Carter, Peyton N., Eric E. Hall, Caroline J. Ketcham, and Osman H. Ahmed. 2021. Not Just for Dancing? A Content Analysis of Concussion and Head Injury Videos on TikTok. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 3: 692613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Chang, Angela, Xuechang Xian, Matthew Tingchi Liu, and Xinshu Zhao. 2022. Health Communication through Positive and Solidarity Messages Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic: Automated Content Analysis of Facebook Uses. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19: 6159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Comp, Geoffrey, Sean Dyer, and Michael Gottlieb. 2020. Is TikTok The Next Social Media Frontier for Medicine? AEM Education and Training 5: 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Competiello, Sarah K., George Y. Bizer, and Catherine D. Walker. 2023. The Power of Social Media: Stigmatizing Content Affects Perceptions of Mental Health Care. Sage Journals 9. Available online: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/20563051231207847 (accessed on 15 March 2024). [CrossRef]
  26. Costantini, Julia G., Aaron Goh Qi Yang, and Thomas L. Steinemann. 2022. Gone Viral: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Contact Lens-Related Videos on TikTok. Eye & Contact Lens: Science & Clinical Practice 48: 479–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Das, Rishub, and Brian Drolet. 2021. Plastic Surgeons in TikTok: Top Influencers, Most Recent Posts, and User Engagement. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 148: 1094e–97e. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Davis, Heather A., Meredith R. Kells, Chloe Roske, Sam Holzman, and Jennifer E. Wildes. 2023. A Reflexive Thematic Analysis of #WhatIEatInADay on TikTok. Eating Behaviors 50: 101759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Diamond, Carrie, Alyssa P. Quinn, Colby L. Presley, Jennifer Jacobs, Melissa R Laughter, Jaclyn Anderson, and Chandler Rundle. 2023. Telangiectasia-Related Social Media Posts: Cross-Sectional Analysis of TikTok and Instagram. JMIR Dermatology 6: e41716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Dubin, Justin M., Jonathan A. Aguiar, Jasmine S. Lin, Daniel R. Greenberg, Mary Kate Keeter, Richard J. Fantus, Minh N. Pham, Matthew T. Hudnall, Nelson E. Bennett, Robert E. Brannigan, and et al. 2024. The Broad Reach and Inaccuracy of Men’s Health Information on Social Media: Analysis of TikTok and Instagram. International Journal of Impotence Research 36: 256–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Evans, Emma, Lauren Biehle Gory, and Aislinn O’Kane. 2022. TikTok: An Opportunity for Antibiotic Education? Innovations in Pharmacy 13: 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Feng, Sharon J., Michelle Yu, Stephen Leong, and Alexander Chern. 2023. Exploration and Analysis of Cochlear Implant Content on Social Media. Cureus 15: e45801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Firmalino, Miracle Vania, Sanjeeth George, and Thomas Schlieve. 2023. Can a Social Media Application Be a Valid Educational Tool for Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Patients? Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 81: 1295–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Fowler, Leah R., Lauren Schoen, Hadley Stevens Smith, and Stephanie R. Morain. 2022. Sex Education on TikTok: A Content Analysis of Themes. Health Promotion Practice 23: 739–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Gajjar, Avi A., Mohamed M. Salem, Neo Y. Hou, Ryan Michael Davis, Anthony Huy Dinh Le, Brian T. Jankowitz, and Jan Karl Burkhardt. 2023. What Matters Most to Cerebral Aneurysms Patients: A Digital Analysis of 1127 Social Media Posts. Interventional Neuroradiology. Epub ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Galamgam, Jayden, and Justin L. Jia. 2021. ‘Accutane Check’: Insights into Youth Sentiment toward Isotretinoin from a TikTok Trend. Pediatric Dermatology 38: 980–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Gilmore, Daniel, Deondray Radford, Meghan K. Haas, Morgan Shields, Lauren Bishop, and Brittany Hand. 2024. Building Community and Identity Online: A Content Analysis of Highly Viewed #Autism TikTok Videos. Autism in Adulthood 6: 95–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Green, James. 2024. TikTok and the Changing Landscape of Therapeutic Digital Spaces of Care. Digital Geography and Society 6: 100077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Greene, Amanda K., and Hannah N. Norling. 2023. ‘Follow to *actually* Heal Binge Eating’: A Mixed Methods Textual Content Analysis of #BEDrecovery on TikTok. Eating Behaviors 50: 101793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Grossman, Suzanne, Julia M. Alber, Dayna S. Henry, David Askay, Hunter Glanz, Erika Marts, and Anna Ostrander. 2022. An Ecological Model Analysis of COVID-19 Social Media Posts. Journal of Consumer Health on the Internet 26: 248–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Gussner, Anna, Danika Baskar, Matt Rohde, Ted Ganley, and Kevin Shea. 2022. Evaluating Information About Osteochondritis Dissecans Shared Across Social Media Platforms. Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics 42: 627–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hampton, Adam J., Amanda N. Fisher Boyd, and Susan Sprecher. 2018. You’re like Me and I like You: Mediators of the Similarity–Liking Link Assessed before and after a Getting-Acquainted Social Interaction. Sage Journals 36: 2221–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hassan, Bashar, Jessica Mroueh, Vanessa Mroueh, Joseph M. Escandón, Safi Ali-Khan, Gabriel Del Corral, Pedro Ciudad, and Oscar J. Manrique. 2023. TikTok in Transgender Health: Is It Really Useful for Plastic Surgeons? Transgender Health X: 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Hong, Brendan Jae Uk, and Benjamin K. P. Woo. 2022. Investigating Turf Burn–Related Videos on TikTok: Cross-Sectional Study. JMIR Dermatology 5: e36218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Iqbal, Mansoor. 2024. TikTok Revenue and Usage Statistics (2024). Business of Apps. July 8. Available online: https://www.businessofapps.com/data/tik-tok-statistics/ (accessed on 30 July 2024).
  46. Irfan, Bilal, Ihsaan Yasin, and Aneela Yaqoob. 2023. Navigating Digital Dermatology: An Analysis of Acne-Related Content on TikTok. Cureus 15: e45226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Isaac, Sarah, Nicole Acero, Kateryna Kolesnikova, and Emily Howell. 2024. Endometriosis on TikTok: Evaluating Social Media Misinformation and the Role of Healthcare Professionals. Journal of Endometriosis and Pelvic Pain Disorders 16: 3–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Jafri, Faraz I., Nirupama Ancha, Ananya Roy, Sami Ahmad, Hamna Riaz, and Charles Hyman. 2023. TikTok and Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS): A Cross-Sectional Study of Social Media Content Quality. Journal of Public Health, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Jaime, Christie, Lalitha Samuel, Joseph Fera, and Corey H. Basch. 2023. Discussing Health While Seeking Community: A Descriptive Study of Celiac Disease on TikTok. Nutrition and Health 29: 37–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Janes, Emily E., Kristian Villalovos, and Carissa D’Aniello. 2023. #BadTherapist: What TikTok Is Saying About Therapy Discontinuation. Contemporary Family Therapy 45: 265–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Jiang, Kallie, Douglas R. Nordli, and Fernando Galan. 2023. The Devil Is in the Details: Understanding How Misinformation Regarding Epilepsy Manifests in TikTok Videos. Epileptic Disorders 25: 28–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. John, Jithin, Rohun Gupta, Pushtee Jhaveri, Eduardo M. Leon, Eric Cox, Jonathan Raskin, Neil J. Khatter, Ricky Sayal, and Adam Folbe. 2022. Tonsillectomy and Social Media: An Investigative Analysis of Educational Tonsillectomy Content on TikTok. Health Science Reports 5: e618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kanner, Jenna, Suneet Waghmarae, Amy Nemirovsky, Shu Wang, Stacy Loeb, and Rena Malik. 2023. TikTok and YouTube Videos on Overactive Bladder Exhibit Poor Quality and Diversity. Urology Practice 10: 493–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Khan, Sabrina, Danielle Yee, Samiya Khan, Manan Mehta, Caterina Zagona-Prizio, Nicole Maynard, Rasika Reddy, and April W. Armstrong. 2022. Biologics to Breast Milk: A Cross-Sectional Study of Popular Eczema Treatment Content on TikTok. Pediatric Dermatology 39: 920–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Kim, Sang Jung, Isabel Iruani Villanueva, and Kaiping Chen. 2023. Going Beyond Affective Polarization: How Emotions and Identities Are Used in Anti-Vaccination TikTok Videos. Political Communication 41: 588–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kong, Wenwen, Shijie Song, Yuxiang Chris Zhao, Qinghua Zhu, and Ling Sha. 2021. TikTok as a Health Information Source: Assessment of the Quality of Information in Diabetes-Related Videos. Journal of Medical Internet Research 23: e30409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Lahooti, Ali, Amier Hassan, Brian Critelli, Donevan Westerveld, Carolyn Newberry, Sonal Kumar, and Reem Z. Sharaiha. 2023. Quality and Popularity Trends of Weight Loss Procedure Videos on TikTok. Obesity Surgery 33: 714–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Li, Yachao, Mengfei Guan, Paige Hammond, and Lane E. Berrey. 2021. Communicating COVID-19 Information on TikTok: A Content Analysis of TikTok Videos from Official Accounts Featured in the COVID-19 Information Hub. Health Education Research 36: 261–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Lookingbill, Valerie. 2022. Examining Nonsuicidal Self-Injury Content Creation on TikTok through Qualitative Content Analysis. Library & Information Science Research 44: 101199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Lookingbill, Valerie, Ehsan Mohammadi, and Yizhou Cai. 2023. Assessment of Accuracy, User Engagement, and Themes of Eating Disorder Content in Social Media Short Videos. JAMA Network Open 6: e238897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Lorenzo-Luaces, Lorenzo, Clare Dierckman, and Sydney Adams. 2023. Attitudes and (Mis)Information About Cognitive Behavioral Therapy on TikTok: An Analysis of Video Content. Journal of Medical Internet Research 25: e45571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Lovett, Jessica T., Kamran Munawar, Sharon Mohammed, and Vinay Prabhu. 2021. Radiology Content on TikTok: Current Use of a Novel Video-Based Social Media Platform and Opportunities for Radiology. Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology 50: 126–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Lundy, Morgan. 2023. TikTok and COVID-19 Vaccine Misinformation: New Avenues for Misinformation Spread, Popular Infodemic Topics, and Dangerous Logical Fallacies. International Journal of Communication 17: 24. [Google Scholar]
  64. Lutomia, Anne Namatsi, Jeremy W. Bohonos, and Julia Bello-Bravo. 2022. Using Music and Animations for COVID-19 Prevention: The Case of a Scientific Program. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development 34: 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. McBriar, Joshua D., Akash Mishra, Harshal A. Shah, John A. Boockvar, David J. Langer, and Randy S. D’Amico. 2023. #Neurosurgery: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Neurosurgical Content on TikTok. World Neurosurgery: X 17: 100137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. McCashin, Darragh, and Colette M. Murphy. 2023. Using TikTok for Public and Youth Mental Health—A Systematic Review and Content Analysis. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry 28: 279–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Minadeo, Marisa, and Lizzy Pope. 2022. Weight-Normative Messaging Predominates on TikTok—A Qualitative Content Analysis. Edited by Eliana Carraça. PLoS ONE 17: e0267997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Moorhead, S. Anne, Diane E. Hazlett, Laura Harrison, Jennifer K. Carroll, Anthea Irwin, and Ciska Hoving. 2013. A New Dimension of Health Care: Systematic Review of the Uses, Benefits, and Limitations of Social Media for Health Communication. Journal of Medical Internet Research 15: e1933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Mordecai, Chandler. 2023. #anxiety: A Multimodal Discourse Analysis of Narrations of Anxiety on TikTok. Computers and Composition 67: 102763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Morse, Elliot, Eseosa Odigie, Helen Gillespie, and Anaïs Rameau. 2024. The Readability of Patient-Facing Social Media Posts on Common Otolaryngologic Diagnoses. Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery 170: 1051–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Munoz, Isreal Bladimir, Jasmine Liu-Zarzuela, Navin Oorjitham, and Devon Jacob. 2024. YouTube and TikTok as a Source of Medical Information on Dissociative Identity Disorder. Journal of Affective Disorders Reports 15: 100707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Nair, Isha, Sophia P. Patel, Ashley Bolen, Samantha Roger, Kayla Bucci, Laura Schwab-Reese, and Andrea L. DeMaria. 2023. Reproductive Health Experiences Shared on TikTok by Young People: Content Analysis. JMIR Infodemiology 3: e42810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Naroji, Swetha, Jennifer John, and Veronica Gomez-Lobo. 2024. Understanding PCOS-Related Content across Social Media Platforms—A Cross-Sectional Analysis. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology 37: 142–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Naseer, Shahrukh, Sazid Hasan, Julia Bhuiyan, and Anuradha Prasad. 2022. Current Public Trends in the Discussion of Dry Eyes: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Popular Content on TikTok. Cureus 14: e22702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Nickles, Melissa A., and Roger N. Haber. 2022. Social Media Voices on the Treatment of Skin Psoriasis with Biologics. Journal of Dermatological Treatment 33: 3208–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. O’Donnell, Nicole, Sultana Ismet Jerin, and Di Mu. 2023. Using TikTok to Educate, Influence, or Inspire? A Content Analysis of Health-Related EduTok Videos. Journal of Health Communication 28: 539–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Olsson, Sofia Eva, Jonah Francis Schmitz, Alice Elaine Huang, and Alan Douglas Murray. 2023. A Descriptive Analysis of Otolaryngology Presence on the Social Media Platform TikTok. Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology 8: 1516–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Olvera, Caroline, Glenn T. Stebbins, Christopher G. Goetz, and Katie Kompoliti. 2021. TikTok Tics: A Pandemic Within a Pandemic. Movement Disorders Clinical Practice 8: 1200–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Om, Anjali, Bobby Ijeoma, Sara Kebede, and Albert Losken. 2021. Analyzing the Quality of Aesthetic Surgery Procedure Videos on TikTok. Aesthetic Surgery Journal 41: 2078–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Page, Matthew J., David Moher, Patrick M. Bossuyt, Isabelle Boutron, Tammy C. Hoffmann, Cynthia D. Mulrow, Larissa Shamseer, Jennifer M. Tetzlaff, Elie A. Akl, Sue E. Brennan, and et al. 2021a. PRISMA 2020 Explanation and Elaboration: Updated Guidance and Exemplars for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ 372: n160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Page, Matthew J., Joanne E. McKenzie, Patrick M. Bossuyt, Isabelle Boutron, Tammy C. Hoffmann, Cynthia D. Mulrow, Larissa Shamseer, Jennifer M. Tetzlaff, Elie A. Akl, Sue E. Brennan, and et al. 2021b. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ 372: n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Passarelli, Emily, Moiuri Siddique, Laura Fry, Lisa Hickman, and Katie Propst. 2024. Perineal Lacerations and Social Media: Can Patients Find Reliable Information on Instagram and TikTok? International Urogynecology Journal 35: 183–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Peipert, Benjamin J., Jenny Wu, Ian A. Taylor-Cho, Siera R. Lunn, Jonas J. Swartz, and Kelly Acharya. 2023. The #IVF Journey: Content Analysis of IVF Videos on TikTok. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 47: 103372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Pfender, Emily J., Kate Tsiandoulas, Stephanie R. Morain, and Leah R. Fowler. 2024. Hormonal Contraceptive Side Effects and Nonhormonal Alternatives on TikTok: A Content Analysis. Health Promotion Practice. Epub ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Pleasure, Zoe H., Andréa Becker, Dana M. Johnson, Kathleen Broussard, and Laura Lindberg. 2024. How TikTok Is Being Used to Talk about Abortion Post-Roe: A Content Analysis of the Most Liked Abortion TikToks. Contraception 133: 110384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Purushothaman, Vidya, Tiana McMann, Matthew Nali, Zhuoran Li, Raphael Cuomo, and Tim K Mackey. 2022. Content Analysis of Nicotine Poisoning (Nic Sick) Videos on TikTok: Retrospective Observational Infodemiology Study. Journal of Medical Internet Research 24: e34050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Rossi, Nicholas A., Mia Benavidez, Shiva A. Nuti, Yusif Hajiyev, Charles A. Hughes, and Harold S. Pine. 2024. Viral Voices: A Multi-Platform Analysis of Tonsillectomy on Social Media. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology 176: 111816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Rossi, Nicholas A., Sachin S. George, Kirav P. Patel, Devin N. Reddy, Jason F. Ohlstein, Brian J. McKinnon, Farrah N. Siddiqui, and Katherine A. Lees. 2022. Qualitative Analysis of Sinus Surgery Posts on Popular Social Media Platforms. American Journal of Otolaryngology 43: 103388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Rothchild, Evan, Fei Wang, Julia Grande, and Joseph A Ricci. 2023. An Analysis of Cosmetic Facial Injectable Treatment Content on TikTok. Aesthetic Surgery Journal 43: 1048–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Sampige, Ritu, Emily Grace Rodgers, Austin Huang, and Dagny Zhu. 2024. Education and Misinformation: Exploring Ophthalmology Content on TikTok. Ophthalmology and Therapy 13: 97–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Samuel, Laliitha, Hao Tang, and Corey H. Basch. 2022. TikTok: A Far-Reaching Opportunity for Health Professionals to Address Weight Loss. Public Health 213: 94–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Schwartz, Joseph, Josh Grimm, and Cameron Jamison. 2023. PrEP on TikTok: Benefits, Barriers, and Possibilities. Communication Research Reports 40: 250–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Shah, Yash B., Jacob Beiriger, Sagar Mehta, and Seth D. Cohen. 2023. Analysis of Patient Education Materials on TikTok for Erectile Dysfunction Treatment. International Journal of Impotence Research. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Siegal, Alexandra R., Fernando A. Ferrer, Eva Baldisserotto, and Neha R. Malhotra. 2023. The Assessment of TikTok as a Source of Quality Health Information on Varicoceles. Urology 175: 170–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Singh, Shubham. 2024. TikTok User Statistics 2024 (Global Data). DemandSage (blog). April 29. Available online: https://www.demandsage.com/tiktok-user-statistics/ (accessed on 1 May 2024).
  96. Song, Siyou, Keon Min Park, Kiet Phong, and Esther A. Kim. 2022. Evaluating the Quality and Reliability of Gender- Affirming Surgery Videos on YouTube and TikTok. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery–Global Open 10: e4443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Southwick, Lauren, Ashley Francisco, Megan Bradley, Elissa Klinger, and Sharath Chandra Guntuku. 2023. Characterizing Responses to COVID-19 Vaccine Promotion on TikTok. American Journal of Health Promotion 37: 638–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Southwick, Lauren, Sharath C. Guntuku, Elissa V. Klinger, Emily Seltzer, Haley J. McCalpin, and Raina M. Merchant. 2021. Characterizing COVID-19 Content Posted to TikTok: Public Sentiment and Response During the First Phase of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Adolescent Health 69: 234–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Stoddard, Rachel E., Andrea Pelletier, Emily N. Sundquist, Maetal E. Haas-Kogan, Bina Kassamali, Melody Huang, Natasha R. Johnson, and Deborah Bartz. 2024. Popular Contraception Videos on TikTok: An Assessment of Content Topics. Contraception 129: 110300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Suarez-Lledo, Victor, and Javier Alvarez-Galvez. 2021. Prevalence of Health Misinformation on Social Media: Systematic Review. January. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7857950/ (accessed on 1 May 2024).
  101. Subramanian, Tejas, Kasra Araghi, Izzet Akosman, Olivia Tuma, Amier Hassan, Ali Lahooti, Anthony Pajak, Pratyush Shahi, Robert Merrill, Omri Maayan, and et al. 2023. Quality of Spine Surgery Information on Social Media: A DISCERN Analysis of TikTok Videos. Neurospine 20: 1443–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Tabakin, Alexandra L., Sharon Choi, Arshia Sandozi, Kelli Aibel, Michael A. Weintraub, Harvey A. Winkler, Dara F. Shalom, Justina Tam, and Wai Lee. 2024. Third-Line Overactive Bladder Therapies on TikTok: What Does the Public Learn? Urogynecology 30: 557–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Tabarestani, Troy Q., Albert T. Anastasio, Anthony Duruewuru, Joshua R. Taylor, Mikhail A. Bethell, and Samuel B. Adams. 2023. Analyzing the Quality and Educational Value of Achilles Tendinopathy-Related Videos on TikTok. Foot and Ankle Surgery 29: 350–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Tam, Justina, Emily K. Porter, and Una J. Lee. 2022. Examination of Information and Misinformation about Urinary Tract Infections on TikTok and YouTube. Urology 168: 35–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Thang, Christopher J., David Garate, Joseph Thang, Jules B. Lipoff, and John S. Barbieri. 2023. Short-Form Medical Media: A Multi-Platform Analysis of Acne Treatment Information in TikTok Videos, Instagram Reels, and YouTube Shorts. JMIR Dermatology 6: e48140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. TikTok. 2020. How TikTok Recommends Videos #ForYou. Newsroom|TikTok. June 18. Available online: https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/how-tiktok-recommends-videos-for-you (accessed on 1 May 2024).
  107. Tolson, Hannah, Danielle Wenger, Mariana McCune, Fatmah Alzahrani, and Elizabeth Dupuy. 2023. TikTok as a Source of Medical Information: Port Wine Stain Birthmarks and Treatment Using Vascular Lasers. Cureus 15: e45119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Ungar, Thomas, Stephanie Knaak, and Andrew C. H. Szeto. 2015. Theoretical and Practical Considerations for Combating Mental Illness Stigma in Health Care. Community Mental Health Journal 52: 262–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Waterton, Kelita A., and Shari R. Lipner. 2023. Truth or Trend—Misinformation Spreading Fast on TikTok: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Onychomycosis Content. Skin Appendage Disorders 9: 444–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Wu, Jenny, Esmé Trahair, Megan Happ, and Jonas Swartz. 2023. TikTok, #IUD, and User Experience with Intrauterine Devices Reported on Social Media. Obstetrics & Gynecology 141: 215–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Xu, Alex J., Jacob Taylor, Tian Gao, Rada Mihalcea, Veronica Perez-Rosas, and Stacy Loeb. 2021. TikTok and Prostate Cancer: Misinformation and Quality of Information Using Validated Questionnaires. BJU International 128: 435–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Yalamanchili, Bhavya, Lorie Donelle, Leo-Felix Jurado, Joseph Fera, and Corey H Basch. 2022. Investigating #covidnurse Messages on TikTok: Descriptive Study. JMIR Nursing 5: e35274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Yang, Bo, Yachao Li, Larissa Terán, Eunjoo Choi, and Yunjin Choi. 2024. COVID-19 Vaccines #ForYou: Analyzing COVID-19 Vaccine Videos on TikTok During the Early Phase of the Vaccine Rollout in the U.S. Health Communication 39: 1594–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Yang, Yang. 2022. TikTok/Douyin Use and Its Influencer Video Use: A Cross-Cultural Comparison Between Chinese and US Users. Online Media and Global Communication 1: 339–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Yun, Sonora, Maria C. Garzon, and Kimberly D. Morel. 2024. An Analysis of Information about Infantile Hemangiomas on TikTok: A Cross-sectional Study. Pediatric Dermatology 41: 253–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Zargaran, Alexander, Sara Sousi, David Zargaran, and Afshin Mosahebi. 2023. TikTok in Plastic Surgery: A Systematic Review of Its Uses. Aesthetic Surgery Journal Open Forum 5: ojad081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Zea Vera, Alonso, Adrienne Bruce, Jordan Garris, Laura Tochen, Poonam Bhatia, Rebecca K. Lehman, Wendi Lopez, Steve W. Wu, and Donald L. Gilbert. 2022. The Phenomenology of Tics and Tic-Like Behavior in TikTok. Pediatric Neurology 130: 14–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Zehrung, Rachael F., and Yunan Chen. 2024. Self-Expression and Sharing around Chronic Illness on TikTok, January. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10785898/ (accessed on 1 May 2024).
  119. Zheng, David X., Anne Y. Ning, Melissa A. Levoska, Laura Xiang, Christina Wong, and Jeffrey F. Scott. 2021. Acne and Social Media: A Cross-sectional Study of Content Quality on TikTok. Pediatric Dermatology 38: 336–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Journalmedia 05 00088 g001
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram summarizing the literature search process.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram summarizing the literature search process.
Journalmedia 05 00088 g001
Journalmedia 05 00088 g002
Figure 2. Publication Year Distribution by Topic.
Figure 2. Publication Year Distribution by Topic.
Journalmedia 05 00088 g002
Journalmedia 05 00088 g003
Figure 3. Percent of Papers Reporting Each Variable.
Figure 3. Percent of Papers Reporting Each Variable.
Journalmedia 05 00088 g003
Journalmedia 05 00088 g004
Figure 4. Specific Characteristics of Video Creator Reported.
Figure 4. Specific Characteristics of Video Creator Reported.
Journalmedia 05 00088 g004
Journalmedia 05 00088 g005
Figure 5. Reported Outcomes Stratified by Topic.
Figure 5. Reported Outcomes Stratified by Topic.
Journalmedia 05 00088 g005
Table 1. Full Summary of Included Studies.
Table 1. Full Summary of Included Studies.
CitationTopicSubtopic (If Applicable)
(Abdelnour et al. 2023)DermatologyAtopic dermatitis
(Abramson et al. 2023)Prostate cancerProstate cancer screening
(Aflatooni et al. 2023)OrthopedicsScoliosis
(Alter et al. 2024)OtolaryngologyVocal health
(Anastasio et al. 2023)Orthopedic surgeryAnkle sprain exercises
(Aragon-Guevara et al. 2023)Autism and developmental disordersAutism
(Babar et al. 2022)Men’s healthErectile dysfunction
(Baghdadi et al. 2023)COVID-19
(Basch et al. 2022d)Mental health
(Basch et al. 2022c)COVID-19Handwashing during COVID-19
(Basch et al. 2021a)COVID-19Mask use
(Basch et al. 2022a)Sexual healthHPV vaccination
(Basch et al. 2022b)Breast cancer
(Basch et al. 2021b)COVID-19COVID-19 vaccines
(Basch et al. 2024)Infectious diseaseMonkeypox
(Bethell et al. 2023b)OrthopedicsACL rehabilitation
(Bethell et al. 2023a)OrthopedicsShoulder instability
(Bharat et al. 2023)OtolaryngologyTonsillectomy
(Boatman et al. 2022)Sexual healthHPV vaccine
(Carter et al. 2021)NeurologyConcussion and head injury
(Costantini et al. 2022)OphthalmologyContact-lenses
(Das and Drolet 2021)Plastic/aesthetic surgeryPlastic surgeons
(Davis et al. 2023)Mental health#Whatieatinaday
(Diamond et al. 2023)DermatologyTelangiectasia
(Dubin et al. 2024)Men’s health
(Evans et al. 2022)Infectious diseaseAntibiotic education
(Feng et al. 2023)AudiologyCochlear implant
(Firmalino et al. 2023)Oral and maxillofacial surgeryOral and maxillofacial surgery
(Fowler et al. 2022)Sexual healthSex education
(Gajjar et al. 2023)NeurologyCerebral aneurysm
(Galamgam and Jia 2021)DermatologyIsotretinoin/Accutane
(Gilmore et al. 2024)Autism and developmental disordersAutism
(Green 2024)Mental healthBinge eating recovery
(Greene and Norling 2023)Mental healthDigital therapeutics
(Grossman et al. 2022)COVID-19
(Gussner et al. 2022)OrthopedicsOsteochondritis
(Hassan et al. 2023)Gender-affirming surgeryTransgender health
(Hong and Woo 2022)DermatologyTurf burn
(Irfan et al. 2023)DermatologyAcne
(Isaac et al. 2024)Gynecology and ObstetricsEndometriosis
(Jafri et al. 2023)GastroenterologyIrritable bowel syndrome
(Jaime et al. 2023)GastroenterologyCeliac disease
(Janes et al. 2023)Mental healthTherapy discontinuation
(Jiang et al. 2023)NeurologyEpilepsy
(John et al. 2022)OtolaryngologyTonsillectomy
(Kanner et al. 2023)UrologyOveractive bladder
(Khan et al. 2022)DermatologyEczema
(Kim et al. 2023)VaccinesAnti-vaccination
(Lahooti et al. 2023)SurgeryWeight loss procedure
(Li et al. 2021)COVID-19
(Lookingbill 2022)Mental healthNon suicidal self-injury
(Lookingbill et al. 2023)Mental healthEating disorders
(Lorenzo-Luaces et al. 2023)Mental healthCognitive behavioral therapy
(Lovett et al. 2021)RadiologyRadiology
(Lundy 2023)COVID-19COVID-19 vaccine misinformation
(McBriar et al. 2023)Neurosurgery/spine surgeryNeurosurgery
(Minadeo and Pope 2022)Weight lossWeight-normative messaging
(Mordecai 2023)Mental healthAnxiety
(Morse et al. 2024)OtolaryngologyOtolaryngology
(Munoz et al. 2024)Mental healthDissociative identity disorder
(Nair et al. 2023)Gynecology and ObstetricsReproductive health experiences
(Naroji et al. 2024)Gynecology and ObstetricsPCOS
(Naseer et al. 2022)OphthalmologyDry eyes
(Nickles and Haber 2022)DermatologySkin psoriasis
(O’Donnell et al. 2023)General health informationHealth-related education
(Olsson et al. 2023)OtolaryngologyOtolaryngology
(Olvera et al. 2021)NeurologyTics
(Om et al. 2021)Plastic/aesthetic surgeryAesthetic surgery
(Passarelli et al. 2024)Gynecology and ObstetricsPerineal lacerations
(Peipert et al. 2023)Gynecology and ObstetricsIVF
(Pfender et al. 2024)Gynecology and ObstetricsHormonal contraceptive side effects
(Pleasure et al. 2024)Gynecology and ObstetricsAbortion
(Purushothaman et al. 2022)“Getting nic sick”/antismokingNicotine poisoning
(Rossi et al. 2024)OtolaryngologyTonsillectomy
(Rossi et al. 2022)OtolaryngologySinus surgery
(Rothchild et al. 2023)Plastic/aesthetic surgeryCosmetic facial injectable
(Sampige et al. 2024)OphthalmologyOphthalmology
(Samuel et al. 2022)Weight loss
(Schwartz et al. 2023)Sexual healthPrEP
(Shah et al. 2023)Men’s healthErectile dysfunction
(Siegal et al. 2023)UrologyVaricoceles
(Song et al. 2022)Gender-affirming surgeryGender-affirming surgery
(Southwick et al. 2023)COVID-19COVID-19 vaccine promotion
(Southwick et al. 2021)COVID-19
(Stoddard et al. 2024)Gynecology and ObstetricsContraception
(Subramanian et al. 2023)Neurosurgery/spine surgerySpine surgery
(Tabakin et al. 2024)UrologyBladder therapies
(Tabarestani et al. 2023)OrthopedicsAchilles tendinopathy
(Tam et al. 2022)UrologyUrinary tract infections
(Thang et al. 2023)DermatologyAcne treatment
(Tolson et al. 2023)DermatologyPort wine stain birthmarks
(Waterton and Lipner 2023)DermatologyOnychomycosis
(Wu et al. 2023)Gynecology and ObstetricsIntrauterine devices
(Xu et al. 2021)Prostate cancerProstate cancer
(Yalamanchili et al. 2022)COVID-19COVID nurse
(Yang et al. 2024)COVID-19COVID-19 vaccines
(Yun et al. 2024)DermatologyInfantile hemangiomas
(Zea Vera et al. 2022)NeurologyTics and tic-like behavior
(Zehrung and Chen 2024)Chronic conditions/illnessesChronic illness
(Zheng et al. 2021)DermatologyAcne
Table 2. Topic Distribution.
Table 2. Topic Distribution.
Topicn% Total% within
Non-Surgical Specialties5150.5%
Dermatology12 23.5%
Gynecology and Obstetrics9 17.6%
Otolaryngology7 13.7%
Neurology5 9.8%
Orthopedics5 9.8%
Urology4 7.8%
Ophthalmology3 5.9%
Gastroenterology2 3.9%
Infectious Disease2 3.9%
Radiology1 2.0%
Audiology1 2.0%
Surgery109.9%
Plastic surgery3 30.0%
Gender-affirming surgery2 20.0%
Neurosurgery2 20.0%
Oral and maxillofacial surgery1 10.0%
Orthopedic surgery1 10.0%
General surgery1 10.0%
Cancer33.0%
Prostate cancer2 66.6%
Breast cancer1 33.3%
COVID-191211.9%
Mental Health109.9%
Other1514.9%
Sexual health4 26.7%
Men’s health3 20.0%
Autism and Developmental Disorder2 13%
Weight loss2 13.3%
Chronic Conditions1 6.7%
General Health Information1 6.7%
Antismoking1 6.7%
Vaccination1 6.7%
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sattora, E.A.; Ganeles, B.C.; Pierce, M.E.; Wong, R. Research on Health Topics Communicated through TikTok: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Journal. Media 2024, 5, 1395-1412. https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia5030088

AMA Style

Sattora EA, Ganeles BC, Pierce ME, Wong R. Research on Health Topics Communicated through TikTok: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Journalism and Media. 2024; 5(3):1395-1412. https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia5030088

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sattora, Emily A., Brian C. Ganeles, Morgan E. Pierce, and Roger Wong. 2024. "Research on Health Topics Communicated through TikTok: A Systematic Review of the Literature" Journalism and Media 5, no. 3: 1395-1412. https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia5030088

APA Style

Sattora, E. A., Ganeles, B. C., Pierce, M. E., & Wong, R. (2024). Research on Health Topics Communicated through TikTok: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Journalism and Media, 5(3), 1395-1412. https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia5030088

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop