Quality and reliability of health information about altitude sickness on Douyin and Bilibili: a cross-sectional study

Background: Short video platforms are increasingly used for health information in China, yet the quality of user generated content on altitude sickness remains unexamined. This study evaluated the quality, reliability, and content characteristics of altitude sickness videos on Douyin and Bilibili. Methods: A cross-sectional design was adopted. The Chinese search term “Altitude Sickness” was used to search on the Chinese short video platforms Douyin and Bilibili. The top 100 videos recommended by each platform were collected. Data on video publication, content, and characteristics were extracted. The Journal of the American Medical Association benchmark criteria (JAMA), modified DISCERN (mDISCERN), and Global Quality Score (GQS) tools were used to assess video reliability and quality. Statistical analysis involved descriptive and comparative methods to evaluate video characteristics and quality, as well as correlation analysis to examine their relationships. Analyses were conducted using SPSS 26.0, statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. Results: A total of 161 videos (85 from Douyin, 76 from Bilibili) were ultimately included. The overall mean scores for the videos were 2.85 ± 0.75 for JAMA, 2.20 ± 0.79 for mDISCERN, and 2.57 ± 0.88 for GQS. The GQS score of videos from Bilibili was significantly higher than that from Douyin (P < 0.05). Videos published by professional institutions/individuals accounted for only 22.36%, but their content quality was significantly superior to that from non-professional institutions/individuals (P < 0.05). Correlation analysis showed that user interaction data (likes, comments) was negatively correlated with quality scores. Conclusion: The overall quality of altitude sickness videos on major Chinese short video platforms is suboptimal. Content from professional sources is significantly more reliable but remains a minority. Platform interaction metrics (such as likes and comments) do not constitute a reliable proxy for judging the scientific soundness of the content. The public should prioritize professionally sourced information, and platforms should enhance the visibility of evidence-based content.