Abstract: SA-PO0999
Quality and Coverage of Patient-Facing CKD Education on TikTok: A Content Analysis
Session Information
- Educational Research
October 24, 2026 | Location: Exhibit Hall A, Convention Center
Abstract Time: 10:00 AM - 12:00 PM
Category: Educational Research
- 1000 Educational Research
Author
- Sen, Ishani, Nephraware, Sammamish, Washington, United States
Background
Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) use TikTok to seek health information, yet the quality and depth of the information that patients are finding remains unknown. We evaluated CKD educational domain coverage across TikTok videos and compared expert-backed and non-expert content.
Methods
We conducted a cross-sectional content analysis of patient-facing TikTok videos using three search terms ("chronic kidney disease," "CKD," "kidney disease") on a single collection date using a newly created account to minimize algorithmic bias. After duplicate removal, 50 unique videos were analyzed. Eight domains drawn from CKD patient education literature were coded present (1) or absent (0) per video, generating a domain coverage score (0–8). Creator type was categorized as physician, non-physician HCP, institution, patient/caregiver, advocacy org, or unclear; unclear videos were classified as non-expert. Expert-backed content was defined as videos by physicians, non-physician HCPs, or institutions. Engagement was assessed by comparing mean view counts between groups. Group differences in coverage scores were assessed using Mann-Whitney U test.
Results
Expert-backed videos comprised 28% of the sample but generated markedly lower engagement (mean views: 120,913 vs. 402,043). Creator types: physician (20%), non-physician HCP (14%), patient/caregiver (34%), advocacy org (4%), unclear (28%). Mean coverage score was 2.08/8; expert-backed videos scored higher than non-expert content (3.00 vs. 1.72, p=0.016). Intra-rater agreement: 98.8%. Most addressed: CKD definition and staging (60%); least addressed: medication education (4%). Expert-backed videos were more likely to address nephrology referral (57% vs. 8%), proteinuria monitoring (29% vs. 8%), and cardiovascular risk (14% vs. 8%). Misinformation, defined as content inconsistent with current CKD clinical guidance, was identified in 8% of videos (all non-expert).
Conclusion
Patient-facing CKD TikTok content reveals an inverse relationship: non-expert videos dominate engagement yet provide lower educational coverage. Critical gaps persist in medication education, cardiovascular risk, and proteinuria monitoring. Platforms which produce expert-informed patient content, offer one approach to addressing this engagement-quality gap and improving CKD health literacy on TikTok.
Acknowledgment
The authors thank Dr. Joel Topf, MD, for his critical review of this abstract.