ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2026
Content quality and reliability of mental health videos for cancer patients on social media platforms: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCancer patients are increasingly turning to social media, an indispensable source of health information, for mental health support. However, the quality and reliability of widely available mental health videos remain largely unevaluated. This study aimed to systematically evaluate and compare the quality and reliability of mental health videos on social media platforms.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted. We systematically searched and screened the top 100 videos for each of three topics (mindfulness, relaxation techniques, music therapy) on both YouTube and TikTok. Video characteristics, uploader identity, and content format were classified using a standardized framework. Two independent raters assessed video quality using the Global Quality Scale (GQS) and reliability using the modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) instrument. Statistical analyses included Kruskal-Wallis H tests with post-hoc comparisons and K-means clustering analysis.
resultsA total of 600 mental health-related videos screened. Ultimately, 450 eligible videos (187 from YouTube, 263 from TikTok) were included for analysis. YouTube's ecosystem was more institutional, while TikTok was dominated by general users. Videos from healthcare professionals (doctors and non-physician mental health professionals) demonstrated significantly higher reliability scores on both platforms. Regarding audience engagement, highly popular videos on YouTube exhibited significantly lower reliability, whereas engagement and quality were unrelated on TikTok. Content format performance was platform-specific; integrated guidance was reliable on YouTube but scored lowest on TikTok (GQS, p = 0.001 vs practical guidance). Music therapy videos were consistently the lowest-performing topic.
conclusionWhile healthcare professionals are the most reliable sources of mental health information on both YouTube and TikTok, their content is not necessarily the most visible or engaging. The disconnect between popularity and informational quality highlights the need for critical media literacy among patients and calls for platform-level innovations to prioritise reliable health information.
trial registrationNot applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42599339What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.