Quality and reliability assessment of snakebite first-aid information on YouTube and Douyin: implications for public health education

When a person is bitten by a snake, the minutes that follow are critical. The venom can spread quickly through the body, causing severe damage to tissues, blood, and nerves, and in many parts of the world, it can be fatal. Because professional medical help is not always immediately available, the first actions taken by a bystander or the victim themselves can mean the difference between a full recovery and permanent injury or death. For decades, health experts have emphasized that timely and correct first aid can slow the spread of venom, buying precious time for antivenom treatment. However, a significant number of people still turn to traditional remedies or incorrect methods before seeking a hospital, often making the situation worse. Today, millions of people turn to the internet to learn how to handle emergencies, relying on video platforms to find answers when seconds count.

Two of the largest video platforms in the world, YouTube and Douyin, serve as massive libraries of this kind of information. YouTube is the dominant video site globally, while Douyin is the Chinese version of the same short-video format, widely used by hundreds of millions of people. Both platforms allow anyone to upload content, meaning that a video about snakebite first aid could be created by a world-renowned doctor, a local nurse, a science enthusiast, or someone sharing a personal story. The problem is that not all of these videos are accurate. Some contain dangerous advice that could lead to amputation or death. Researchers from the Army Medical University in Chongqing, China, set out to investigate the quality of this information. They wanted to know which videos people are actually watching, who is making them, and whether the advice given is safe and reliable.

The team gathered a total of 198 videos from both platforms, selecting the most popular ones that focused specifically on snakebite first aid. To ensure they were looking at content that had already settled into the public eye, they excluded very new uploads and filtered out commercials or irrelevant clips. They then watched each video carefully, rating them based on three different standards used by medical professionals to judge the quality of health information. These standards looked at how clear and useful the video was, whether the information was trustworthy, and if it followed established medical guidelines. The researchers also noted who uploaded each video, categorizing them into groups such as official hospitals, medical professionals like doctors and nurses, science communicators, news outlets, and non-professional creators.

The results revealed a clear divide between who is speaking and how reliable their message is. On YouTube, videos produced by official medical institutions, such as hospitals and recognized medical organizations, were significantly more accurate and reliable than those made by science communicators or non-professional creators. The same pattern held true on Douyin, where videos from official medical sources scored the highest for quality and trustworthiness. In fact, on Douyin, these official videos were even more reliable than those made by individual healthcare professionals, suggesting that in that region, the public may place a higher premium on institutional authority. However, a concerning finding emerged across both platforms: videos from science communicators and non-professional creators often contained information that was not up to medical standards. There was no significant difference in quality between content made by a science enthusiast and content made by someone with no medical background, indicating that popularity does not guarantee accuracy.

When the researchers looked at the overall quality of the videos, they found that even the best ones were only moderately good. While official hospital videos were the best available, they still lacked the depth and systematic structure needed for a complex medical emergency. The videos were often too short to cover all the necessary details, and many failed to explain the nuances of different types of snake bites. This suggests that while social media is a powerful tool for reaching people, the format itself makes it difficult to deliver the comprehensive education required for life-saving first aid. The study also found that the most popular videos were not necessarily the most accurate. On YouTube, the number of views and likes was strongly linked to how long a video had been online and how many followers the creator had, but these numbers did not reliably predict whether the medical advice was correct. On Douyin, users were very active in sharing and saving videos, but again, these engagement metrics did not correlate with the scientific quality of the content. In some cases, videos that were shared the most actually had lower quality scores, suggesting that the algorithms driving these platforms prioritize what is entertaining or viral over what is scientifically sound.

The study also highlighted how geography influences the conversation. On YouTube, the majority of videos came from Australia, the United States, and India, countries with high rates of snakebites and diverse venomous species. On Douyin, the videos were concentrated in southern Chinese provinces like Sichuan, Guangdong, and Hunan, where snakes are common. However, the researchers noted that some high-risk areas in China, such as Guangxi and Guizhou, had very few educational videos, leaving those populations potentially more vulnerable to misinformation. The timing of the uploads also differed; YouTube videos tended to be older and accumulated over time, while Douyin videos were often clustered around recent trends, with a large number uploaded in 2025. This difference suggests that the two platforms serve different roles in public education, with one acting as a long-term archive and the other as a rapid-response channel for current events.

Ultimately, the research underscores a vital truth for public health: the internet is a double-edged sword. It offers the potential to reach millions of people with life-saving information instantly, but it also allows dangerous misinformation to spread just as quickly. The study concludes that while official medical institutions are the most reliable sources, they are not the only ones filling the digital space. To protect public safety, health organizations and video platforms need to work together to ensure that accurate, authoritative information is easy to find and that misleading content is identified and corrected. Relying on likes, shares, or view counts is not enough to judge the safety of medical advice. Instead, the focus must shift to improving the quality of the content itself, ensuring that when a person searches for help in an emergency, the video they find is not just popular, but truly correct.