# The reliability and quality analysis of health information about Helicobacter pylori on WeChat official accounts

## TL;DR

This study evaluates the reliability and quality of Helicobacter pylori health information on WeChat official accounts, finding it generally poor with significant misinformation risks.

## Contribution

Systematic evaluation of H. pylori health information quality on WeChat using JAMA, mDISCERN, and GQS tools.

## Key findings

- Median scores for reliability and quality assessments were low across all evaluated articles.
- Non-profit organization and hospital-sourced articles showed higher reliability and quality.
- Individual-sourced articles had the lowest scores and were most prone to misinformation.

## Abstract

Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) has drawn considerable attention because of its high infection rate. Although WeChat Official accounts (WOAs) have become a prevalent source of public health information, the reliability and scientific validity of H. pylori-related content on the platform remain uncertain. Therefore, this study aimed to systematically evaluate the reliability and quality of health information on H. pylori disseminated through WOAs and propose evidence-based strategies for enhancing the standard of online health information.

Articles containing the keywords “幽门螺杆菌” or “幽门螺旋杆菌” (Chinese for H. pylori) were retrieved from the WeChat platform. After selection, a total of 115 articles were included in this study. Subsequently, raters collectively evaluated the articles using the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, the modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) tool, and the Global Quality Scale (GQS). Statistical analyses were then conducted. All continuous data were described as median (interquartile range).

The median scores for JAMA, mDISCERN, and GQS across all articles were 2.00 (1.00), 3.00 (2.00), and 3.00 (2.00), respectively. Spearman correlation analysis revealed significant positive correlations between each pair of assessment tools (JAMA, mDISCERN, and GQS; P < 0.001). The Kruskal–Wallis test indicated that JAMA, mDISCERN, and GQS scores were all significantly associated with article sources (p < 0.001). Enterprise accounts contributed to the majority of articles (58.51%). Articles sourced from non-profit organizations demonstrated higher reliability and quality, whereas those from individual sources exhibited lower scores. The issues identified in the articles primarily concerned the treatment of H. pylori.

Generally, the reliability and quality of H. pylori information found on WOAs was unsatisfactory. Users face a significant risk of exposure to misinformation. Content originating from non-profit organizations or large tertiary hospitals demonstrated strong correlations with higher reliability and quality scores. To address these challenges and enhance the credibility of online health information, concerted efforts are required.