Cited by 21Social Media in Health EducationHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityImpact of Technology on Adolescents

YouTube and TikTok as a source of medical information on dissociative identity disorder

Open access
Munoz, Isreal Bladimir, Liu-Zarzuela, Jasmine, Oorjitham, Navin, Jacob, Devon·2024·Journal of Affective Disorders Reports

Abstract

Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) is a rare condition that causes alternation of at least two separate personality states and has a prevalence of less than 1% in the general population. This study aims to appraise the social media platforms, YouTube and TikTok, as sources of medical information on DID. YouTube and TikTok were queried using the following search phrases: “Dissociative Identity Disorder,” “Multiple Personality Disorder,” and “Split Personality Disorder.” The top 60 videos by views for YouTube and likes for TikTok were selected from each search term on each platform. Videos were reviewed by four independent reviewers using a modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) Scale, Global Quality Scale (GQS), and they were further classified as useful, misleading, or neither useful or misleading. Number of videos that met criteria were 60 YouTube videos and 97 TikTok videos. After classification, 51.7% of YouTube videos were useful while only 5.2% of TikTok videos were useful. A significant difference was found between (mDISCERN and GQS) score and the video source, type of content, and classification (α < .05). This study focused exclusively on English videos. Additionally, it did not evaluate other social media platforms that are used worldwide. This results of this study show the need for healthcare professionals and organizations to not only create content of high quality but increase engagement on social media platforms, particularly TikTok, in order to educate users on DID.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jadr.2023.100707

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Similar dynamics of SM modeling of peri-psychiatric symptoms in youth have consistently been reported with respect to dissociative identity disorder and self-harm.

    “Similar dynamics of SM modeling of peri-psychiatric symptoms in youth have consistently been reported with respect to dissociative identity disorder [107, 108] and self-harm [109–111].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Munoz, I. B., Liu-Zarzuela, J., Oorjitham, N., & Jacob, D.
Affiliations
The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (US)
Corresponding author
Munoz, Isreal Bladimir
Venue
Journal of Affective Disorders Reports
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-01
Volume
15
Pages
100707
ISSN
2666-9153 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4390146822
Cited by
21
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7
FWCI
5.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Affective Disorders Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
Keywords
dissociative identity disorder, YouTube, TikTok, social media health information, online health information quality, DISCERN scale, Global Quality Scale, patient education

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review