Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Accepted for/Published in: JMIR Formative Research

Date Submitted: Apr 29, 2025
Date Accepted: Sep 9, 2025

The final, peer-reviewed published version of this preprint can be found here:

Misinformation About Medical Cannabis in YouTube Videos: Systematic Review

Khare S, Erridge S, Chidambaram S, Sodergren MH

Misinformation About Medical Cannabis in YouTube Videos: Systematic Review

JMIR Form Res 2025;9:e76723

DOI: 10.2196/76723

PMID: 41052415

PMCID: 12500220

Misinformation about Medical Cannabis in YouTube Videos: A Systematic Review

  • Shivank Khare; 
  • Simon Erridge; 
  • Swathikan Chidambaram; 
  • Mikael Hans Sodergren

ABSTRACT

Background:

YouTube has become a major source of health information, with 2.5 billion monthly users. Despite efforts taken to promote reliable sources, misinformation remains prevalent, particularly on medical cannabis.

Objective:

This study aims to evaluate the quality and reliability of medical cannabis information on YouTube, examining the relationship between video popularity and content quality.

Methods:

A cross-sectional study was conducted using a scoping review of YouTube videos on medical cannabis. Search terms were selected based on Google Trends, and 800 videos were retrieved on 8th July 2024. After applying exclusion criteria, 516 videos were analysed. Videos were categorised by content creators: (1) non-medical educational channels, (2) medical education channels, and (3) independent users. Two independent reviewers (SK and SE) assessed content quality using the DISCERN Grade and the Health on the Net (HON) Code. Statistical analysis included one-way ANOVA and Pearson’s correlation coefficient.

Results:

Of the 516 videos analysed, 48.5% (n=251) were from the U.S., and 17.2% (n=89) from UK. Only 12.2% (n=63) were produced by medical professionals, while 84.3% (n=435) came from independent users. Total views reached 119 million, with non-medical users having the highest mean views with 1,279,274 ± 4,562,389, and medical professionals the lowest with 70,928 ± 219,874. The mean DISCERN and HON scores for all videos were 34.63 ± 9.49 and 3.93 ± 1.20, respectively. Non-medical educational creators had the highest mean DISCERN score with 47.78 ± 10.40 and independent users had the lowest DISCERN score of 33.50 ± 8.50 (p < 0.001). Similarly, non-medical educational creators had the highest mean HON score with 5.33 ± 1.22, whilst independent users had the lowest HON score of 3.78 ± 1.10 (p = 0.007). Weak positive correlations were found between video views and DISCERN scores (r = 0.34, p < 0.001) and likes and DISCERN scores (r = 0.30, p < 0.001).

Conclusions:

YouTube is a key source of medical cannabis information, but the credibility of videos varies widely. Independent users attract the highest viewers but have reduced reliability according to the DISCERN and HON scores. Medical professional videos, despite increased reliability received the least engagement. The weak correlation between views and content quality emphasises the need for content moderation and increased public awareness regarding the utilisation of online health information. Future research should identify strategies to promote verified sources of information and limit misinformation.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Khare S, Erridge S, Chidambaram S, Sodergren MH

Misinformation About Medical Cannabis in YouTube Videos: Systematic Review

JMIR Form Res 2025;9:e76723

DOI: 10.2196/76723

PMID: 41052415

PMCID: 12500220

Download PDF


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.