The Evidence Base of Fluoride Videos on TikTok.

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Annel Lueth, Lance Brendan Young
{"title":"The Evidence Base of Fluoride Videos on TikTok.","authors":"Annel Lueth, Lance Brendan Young","doi":"10.1111/idh.70151","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The fluoride controversy has intensified in recent years, partly due to new research suggesting negative health effects. Simultaneously, TikTok has become a prominent platform for disseminating oral health-related content, but its accuracy remains uncertain. The purpose of this study is to evaluate TikTok videos addressing fluoride use, comparing the characteristics of videos which are evidence-based to those which are not.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A quantitative content analysis was conducted of the first videos (N = 120) which met the search criteria: provided by TikTok in response to the search string, 'fluoride vs. no fluoride'; publicly accessible; and English-language content. Videos were viewed and coded on the following seven variables: message content (evidence base); source; fluoride position; editing style; length; view rate (views/month); and interaction index (likes/views). Data analysis included descriptive statistics, Pearson Chi square, independent-samples t-tests and Mann-Whitney U tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Only 22.5% of the videos were evidence-based and only 40.0% were pro-fluoride, although 54.1% of the sources were health professionals. Evidence-based videos were more likely to be produced by health professionals (χ<sup>2</sup> = 7.18, df = 2, p = 0.028), carry a pro-fluoride message (χ<sup>2</sup> = 11.91, df = 2, p = 0.003), and be longer (t = 2.16, df = 118, p = 0.033) than videos without an evidence base. The evidence-based videos did not significantly differ in editing style, view rate, or interaction index.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>People using TikTok for clarity on fluoride are less likely to find evidence-based videos, and those videos tend to be pro-fluoride, feature health professionals and be longer than videos which are not evidence based.</p>","PeriodicalId":13791,"journal":{"name":"International journal of dental hygiene","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of dental hygiene","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/idh.70151","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The fluoride controversy has intensified in recent years, partly due to new research suggesting negative health effects. Simultaneously, TikTok has become a prominent platform for disseminating oral health-related content, but its accuracy remains uncertain. The purpose of this study is to evaluate TikTok videos addressing fluoride use, comparing the characteristics of videos which are evidence-based to those which are not.

Methods: A quantitative content analysis was conducted of the first videos (N = 120) which met the search criteria: provided by TikTok in response to the search string, 'fluoride vs. no fluoride'; publicly accessible; and English-language content. Videos were viewed and coded on the following seven variables: message content (evidence base); source; fluoride position; editing style; length; view rate (views/month); and interaction index (likes/views). Data analysis included descriptive statistics, Pearson Chi square, independent-samples t-tests and Mann-Whitney U tests.

Results: Only 22.5% of the videos were evidence-based and only 40.0% were pro-fluoride, although 54.1% of the sources were health professionals. Evidence-based videos were more likely to be produced by health professionals (χ2 = 7.18, df = 2, p = 0.028), carry a pro-fluoride message (χ2 = 11.91, df = 2, p = 0.003), and be longer (t = 2.16, df = 118, p = 0.033) than videos without an evidence base. The evidence-based videos did not significantly differ in editing style, view rate, or interaction index.

Conclusions: People using TikTok for clarity on fluoride are less likely to find evidence-based videos, and those videos tend to be pro-fluoride, feature health professionals and be longer than videos which are not evidence based.

TikTok上氟化物视频的证据基础。
目的:近年来,氟化物的争议愈演愈烈,部分原因是新的研究表明氟化物对健康有负面影响。与此同时,TikTok已成为传播口腔健康相关内容的重要平台,但其准确性仍不确定。本研究的目的是评估有关氟化物使用的TikTok视频,比较基于证据的视频和非基于证据的视频的特征。方法:对符合搜索条件的第一批视频(N = 120)进行定量内容分析:TikTok根据搜索字符串“氟化物vs.无氟化物”提供;公开;和英语内容。视频根据以下七个变量进行观看和编码:信息内容(证据基础);源;氟化位置;编辑风格;长度;观看率(观看数/月);互动指数(喜欢/观看)。数据分析包括描述性统计、皮尔逊卡方检验、独立样本t检验和Mann-Whitney U检验。结果:尽管54.1%的视频来源是卫生专业人员,但只有22.5%的视频是基于证据的,只有40.0%的视频是支持氟化物的。与没有证据基础的视频相比,基于证据的视频更有可能由卫生专业人员制作(χ2 = 7.18, df = 2, p = 0.028),包含支持氟化的信息(χ2 = 11.91, df = 2, p = 0.003),并且更长(t = 2.16, df = 118, p = 0.033)。基于证据的视频在编辑风格、观看率或互动指数方面没有显着差异。结论:使用TikTok了解氟化物的人不太可能找到以证据为基础的视频,这些视频往往是支持氟化物的,有卫生专业人员,比没有证据的视频更长。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International journal of dental hygiene
International journal of dental hygiene DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
8.30%
发文量
78
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Dental Hygiene is the official scientific peer-reviewed journal of the International Federation of Dental Hygienists (IFDH). The journal brings the latest scientific news, high quality commissioned reviews as well as clinical, professional and educational developmental and legislative news to the profession world-wide. Thus, it acts as a forum for exchange of relevant information and enhancement of the profession with the purpose of promoting oral health for patients and communities. The aim of the International Journal of Dental Hygiene is to provide a forum for exchange of scientific knowledge in the field of oral health and dental hygiene. A further aim is to support and facilitate the application of new knowledge into clinical practice. The journal welcomes original research, reviews and case reports as well as clinical, professional, educational and legislative news to the profession world-wide.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书