The advent of the digital age has catalyzed a paradigm shift in how individuals’ access and engage with health information. The term "Dr. Google" has entered the global lexicon, symbolizing the internet's role as a primary, albeit uncredentialed, medical consultant (Tan & Goonawardene, 2017). This phenomenon transcends national borders, economic systems, and generational cohorts, creating a new layer of complexity in the patient-provider relationship and public health outcomes. While the digital divide remains a significant concern, the rapid penetration of mobile technology, even in resource-limited settings, has made online health information-seeking a near-universal behavior (World Health Organization [WHO], 2020). This global shift necessitates a critical examination of how different generations navigate this new digital health landscape and whether the behaviors observed in technologically saturated developed nations are mirrored in developing contexts.

The statement of the problem is twofold. First, the unregulated nature of online health information poses significant risks, including the spread of misinformation, inappropriate self-diagnosis, and heightened health anxiety—often termed "cyberchondria" (Starcevic & Berle, 2019). Second, healthcare systems and medical professionals worldwide are struggling to adapt to a new reality where patients arrive at consultations armed with, and often convinced by, information of varying quality sourced from the internet (Powell et al., 2003). This challenges traditional medical authority and requires new communication strategies from providers. Understanding the generational nuances of this behavior is crucial for developing effective public health communication, patient education, and clinical practices.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how generational differences shape online health-seeking behaviors across developed and developing countries, highlighting common patterns that transcend disparities in healthcare infrastructure. To achieve this, the study employs a qualitative, exploratory methodology, synthesizing and analyzing existing literature published over the last six years. The analysis is guided by the following research questions: The analysis is guided by the following research questions:

1. How do health-seeking behaviors and digital health literacy differ across generational cohorts (Baby Boomers, Generation X, Millennials, and Generation Z) in both developed and developing countries?
2. What are the key commonalities in digital health information-seeking behaviors that emerge across these diverse geopolitical and economic contexts, despite disparities in healthcare infrastructure?
3. How are these evolving patient behaviors influencing the practice of medicine and the patient-provider relationship on a global scale?

The exploration of online health information-seeking behavior (OHISB) is situated at the intersection of public health, communication studies, and sociology. Several theoretical perspectives and insights from recent literature inform this analysis.

The Normalization of Digital Health Consumption and the Concept of "The Empowered Patient"
A dominant perspective in the literature frames the rise of "Dr. Google" as part of a broader shift towards patient empowerment and consumerism in healthcare. This view posits that access to information allows patients to become active participants in their health management rather than passive recipients of care (Alomar et al., 2024). Studies in developed nations show that patients use online information to verify diagnoses, understand treatment options, and prepare for consultations, leading to more informed discussions with their doctors (Powell et al., 2003). This is often seen as a positive development, fostering shared decision-making. However, a critical insight from this perspective is that this "empowerment" is not equally distributed. It is heavily dependent on an individual's level of digital health literacy—the ability to seek, find, understand, and appraise health information from electronic sources and apply the knowledge gained to addressing or solving a health problem (van der Vaart & Drossaert, 2017). This literacy gap creates a new dimension of health inequality, both within and between countries.

Generational Theory and Differential Adoption Patterns

Generational cohort theory provides a valuable lens for understanding disparities in technology adoption and use. Research consistently indicates that younger generations (Millennials, born 1981-1996, and Generation Z, born 1997-2012) are "digital natives" who are not only more likely to turn to the internet first for health information but also exhibit greater confidence in their ability to find and evaluate it (Jia et al., 2021). Their health-seeking behavior is characterized by proactivity, peer-to-peer information sharing via social media, and a preference for instant, accessible answers.

In contrast, older cohorts (Generation X, born 1965-1980, and Baby Boomers, born 1946-1964) have traditionally relied more on healthcare professionals as authoritative sources. However, recent literature indicates a significant shift. Driven by factors like the COVID-19 pandemic and increased comfort with technology, these groups are increasingly engaging in OHISB, albeit more cautiously (Choi & Dinitto, 2013). Their use is often more specific—seeking information on a diagnosed condition or medication—and they place a higher value on the credibility of the source, showing a preference for established health institutions' websites over general search engines or social media (Xie et al., 2020). This generational digital divide, while narrowing, remains a key variable in health communication strategies.

The Double-Edged Sword: Misinformation and Cyberchondria

A significant and growing body of literature focuses on the risks associated with OHISB. The internet is a vast repository of information that is uncurated, commercially biased, and often deliberately misleading. The phenomenon of "medical misinformation"—false or misleading information based on unaccepted or unproven facts—spreads rapidly online, particularly through social media platforms (Wang et al., 2019). This poses a direct threat to public health, as seen in vaccine hesitancy and the promotion of unproven treatments.

A related risk is "cyberchondria," the escalation of health anxiety based on reviewing search results and literature online (Starcevic & Berle, 2019). Individuals performing symptom searches often encounter information on severe illnesses, leading to unnecessary fear and stress. This is a cross-generational concern, though the manifestations may differ; younger users may be more prone to anxiety from exposure on visual platforms like TikTok, while older users may fall prey to sophisticated-looking but pseudoscientific websites.

The Global South Perspective: Leapfrogging and Mobile-First Access

Research on OHISB in developing countries (the Global South) adds a critical perspective often absent from dominant Western narratives. Here, the driver is frequently not a desktop computer but a mobile phone. Mobile health (mHealth) initiatives and the use of mobile internet have enabled these regions to "leapfrog" traditional healthcare infrastructure limitations. For instance, in parts of Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, mobile phones are used for appointment reminders, receiving test results, and accessing basic health information.

This perspective reveals a key commonality: the urgency of the information need. In contexts with physician shortages and long wait times, "Dr. Google" is not a choice but a necessity (Osei Asibey et al., 2017). The search for information is driven by acute access barriers rather than a desire for consumer empowerment. This creates a paradox where those with the least access to qualified care are also the most vulnerable to the misinformation prevalent on the very platforms they rely on for guidance.

The literature review establishes a robust theoretical and empirical foundation for the core investigation of this paper: the transnational and transgenerational commonalities in health-seeking behaviors directed at “Dr. Google.” The synthesis of perspectives—from the discourse on the “empowered patient” to the risks of misinformation and the unique mHealth-driven context of the Global South—collectively demonstrates that while the motivations for online health information-seeking behavior (OHISB) may differ, the resulting behaviors and challenges are converging. The review posits that generational theory is a critical lens, not for highlighting irreconcilable differences, but for tracing a universal trajectory of adoption. Younger generations, as digital natives, are the vanguard, normalizing practices like peer-to-peer information sharing and telemedicine use (Jia et al., 2019). Older cohorts are not resistant but are on an adoption curve, increasingly engaging in OHISB in a more measured manner, a trend accelerated by global events like the COVID-19 pandemic (Choi & Dinitto, 2013; Xie et al., 2020). This sets the stage for the paper’s central argument that generational patterns are a universal predictor of OHISB style, transcending the developed/developing country dichotomy.

Furthermore, the literature directly connects these behavioral patterns to the paper’s core themes of misinformation, telemedicine normalization, and the power of user-generated content. The review underscores that the “double-edged sword” of empowerment and risk is a global constant. The vulnerability to misinformation and cyberchondria (Starcevic & Berle, 2019; Wang et al., 2019) is not confined by geography but is a function of digital health literacy gaps that exist within all societies. Similarly, the normalization of digital health consumption, including telemedicine, is presented as a global phenomenon, albeit initiated through different pathways—consumer choice in developed nations versus necessity in physician-scarce developing nations (Osei Asibey et al., 2017). This synthesis compellingly argues that the commonalities identified are not superficial but are rooted in the universal penetration of mobile technology and social media platforms, which standardize the interface through which individuals, regardless of location or generation, encounter health information. Thus, the literature review effectively frames the problem as a transnational one, where the key variables are generational cohort and digital literacy level, rather than national economic status alone, thereby justifying the paper’s comparative approach and its call for unified global strategies to mitigate risks and harness the potential of “Dr. Google.”

Synthesizing the literature reveals distinct yet overlapping generational profiles in health-seeking behavior, with fascinating parallels emerging between developed and developing nations.

Analysis of Generational Health-Seeking Behaviors and Provider Readiness

Synthesizing the literature reveals distinct yet overlapping generational profiles in health-seeking behavior, with notable parallels and divergences emerging between developed and developing nations. These trends necessitate an evaluation of healthcare provider readiness to adapt to this new digital paradigm.

Among Baby Boomers (1946-1964), a measured and cautious approach to digital health information is observed in developed countries. This cohort increasingly turns to online resources, particularly to comprehend a specific diagnosis or treatment plan received from a physician, prioritizing authoritative sources such as government health agencies, established medical associations, and renowned clinics (Xie et al., 2020). Their primary challenge lies not in navigating the technology but in assessing the credibility of online sources. In developing nations, this pattern is mirrored among urban, educated Boomers, though access is often limited. For poorer and rural Boomers, digital engagement remains the lowest among all cohorts due to constraints in digital literacy, language barriers, and cost, resulting in a continued reliance on local clinics, community health workers, or traditional medicine (Osei Asibey et al., 2017). A key commonality across both contexts is the value placed on perceived authority, whether sourced online or in person. This trend presents a challenge for providers, as they must now contend with patients who have consulted institutional-grade information beforehand, requiring clinicians to effectively integrate and, when necessary, correct this pre-consultation research within the clinical encounter.

Generation X (1965-1980) functions as a pragmatic "bridge" generation. In developed countries, they are comfortable with technology, utilizing search engines for initial health inquiries and closed social media groups, such as Facebook support communities, to share experiential knowledge and practical advice for managing their own health and that of their families (Choi & Dinitto, 2021). They exhibit a tendency to cross-reference information from multiple sources. A strikingly similar pattern is evident among the growing urban middle-class in developing countries, where Gen X individuals are often the primary family health decision-makers. They actively use WhatsApp groups and Facebook to share health advice and doctor recommendations, demonstrating a commonality in their role as family health managers who leverage digital tools (Chen & Wang, 2020). However, a critical difference lies in their heightened vulnerability to misinformation within these trusted closed networks. This trend forces providers to shift from being the sole information authority to acting as guides and curators. They must acknowledge the value of peer support while simultaneously developing strategies to debunk misinformation empathetically and direct patients toward reliable resources, a task that consumes valuable consultation time.

The most profound convergence of behavior is observed among Millennials (1981-1996) and Generation Z (1997-2012). In developed nations, these digital natives are prolific online health information seekers, characterized by proactivity in wellness, heavy reliance on peer reviews and social media influencers, a strong preference for telemedicine and health apps, and a noted skepticism of traditional medical authority (Zenone et al., 2021). Urban youth in developing countries exhibit remarkably similar mobile-first behaviors, using online information not just for convenience but as a tool for empowerment and self-advocacy within often-fragile healthcare systems (Chen & Wang, 2020). A critical similarity is their shared high risk of exposure to medical misinformation through social media, though this risk is often exacerbated in developing contexts by lower levels of critical health literacy. This paradigm shift demands the most significant adjustment from providers. The physician’s role is evolving into that of a partner in a shared decision-making process. Providers must now be proficient in discussing alternative therapies sourced online, interpreting information from health apps, and managing consultations via telemedicine platforms. This requires new competencies in digital communication, building trust with a skeptical generation, and navigating an increasingly consumer-driven healthcare landscape, a transition for which many healthcare systems and training curricula remain underprepared.

The analysis shows that the influence of “Dr. Google” has become a truly global phenomenon,

shaping health behaviors in both developed and developing nations. Despite stark differences in healthcare infrastructure, there is a convergence in how people seek and process online health information. This creates what we might call a digital health paradox: even when access to healthcare remains unequal, the availability of digital tools gives the appearance of equity while often deepening disparities through unequal health literacy and exposure to misinformation. To better understand this transformation, we can draw from several important social and behavioral theories. Historically, as Michel Foucault (2003) described, physicians held exclusive authority in interpreting medical knowledge—a perspective he called the medical gaze. In this traditional model, the doctor’s expertise was the central and trusted source of health decisions.

Today, however, this authority has shifted to what might be called an algorithmic gaze. Search engines, social media platforms, and mobile apps now filter, rank, and deliver health information to patients, often without clear oversight or transparency. In this sense, algorithms—not just doctors—shape how people perceive their symptoms and treatment options. This shift explains why many patients arrive at clinical appointments with strong preconceived ideas about their health, sometimes challenging the physician’s expertise.

Behavioral science helps explain how individuals navigate this digital environment. According to the dual-process theory, humans use two modes of thinking:

• System 1: fast, automatic, and emotional responses.
• System 2: slower, more deliberate, and logical reasoning.

Online health information often appeals to System 1 because it is quick, visual, and emotionally charged—for example, a viral video claiming a miracle cure. This rapid, intuitive reaction can lead to anxiety, poor decision-making, or belief in misinformation. System 2 thinking, which requires effort and analysis, might be engaged when evaluating a scientific article or comparing treatment options. In many developing countries, where access to formal health education is limited, System 1 dominates, making users more vulnerable to simplistic or misleading messages on platforms like WhatsApp, TikTok, or YouTube.

Generational differences also reflect these psychological patterns. Younger generations, who are digital natives, tend to trust peer-generated content and influencers, blending health information with social interaction. Older generations engage more cautiously and are more likely to cross-check information with authoritative sources, such as government websites or their doctors.

However, even cautious users face challenges in distinguishing reliable evidence from commercial or biased content. This changing dynamic has profound implications for the provider-patient relationship.

Traditionally, clinical consultations were guided by mutual understanding, where patients relied on the doctor’s professional judgment. Today, many interactions are influenced by pre-consumed digital content. Patients may seek confirmation of what they have already read online rather than open discussion. Healthcare providers must now act not only as caregivers but also as curators of information, guiding patients toward accurate sources and correcting misinformation without alienating them.

Finally, this transformation highlights the urgent need for digital health literacy. Having internet access alone does not guarantee meaningful empowerment. As Van Dijk (2020) argues, digital inclusion requires a sequence of steps: access to devices, development of digital skills, informed and purposeful use, and ultimately the ability to benefit from technology. Without support at each step, technology may increase rather than reduce health inequalities. Thus, improving digital health literacy must be a priority for governments, public health agencies, and technology companies.

The generational differences observed can be understood through the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) as modified by digital affordances. Younger generations' proactive health behaviors reflect attitudes shaped by digital immersion, subjective norms established through social media networks, and perceived behavioral control enabled by mobile technologies. For older cohorts, digital health engagement is more strongly mediated by perceived self-efficacy in technology use and trust in digital sources. This explains the cautious, authority-oriented approach observed among Baby Boomers and the pragmatic utility-maximizing approach of Generation X.

The global convergence of behaviors despite structural disparities illustrates what Appadurai (1996) termed "mediascapes" - the global flow of digital media that creates shared imaginaries and practices. The smartphone has become what might be called a "health identity mediator" that shapes how individuals across diverse contexts conceive of and pursue health. However, this technological homogenization masks significant disparities in what Sen (1999) would term health capabilities - the substantive freedom to pursue health goals. Access to digital information does not automatically translate to enhanced health agency, particularly where structural barriers prevent acting upon acquired knowledge.

The provider-patient relationship is undergoing what Habermas (1984) might characterize as a colonization of the lifeworld by system imperatives. The clinical encounter, traditionally a space for communicative action oriented toward mutual understanding, is increasingly mediated by technological systems and algorithmic logic. This creates new forms of "digital alienation" where both patients and providers struggle to maintain authentic communication amidst the mediating influence of digital technologies and pre-consumed information.

The preparedness of healthcare systems for this transformation must be assessed through both institutional and phenomenological lenses. At the institutional level, systems face what North (1990) would identify as institutional dissonance - the mismatch between formal institutions (medical training, regulatory frameworks) and informal institutions (patient expectations, digital practices). This is particularly acute in developing contexts where healthcare systems already face significant institutional constraints.

From a phenomenological perspective, the digitalization of health creates new forms of embodied experience where physical symptoms are increasingly interpreted through digital mediation. This represents what Ihde (1990) would describe as a technology-mediated hermeneutic relationship with one's body, where digital information shapes how bodily experiences are understood and acted upon. The risk of cyberchondria represents an extreme form of this digitally-mediated bodily awareness.

The ethical implications are substantial and require a capabilities approach framework that considers what people are effectively able to be and do in relation to their health. Digital health technologies should enhance human capabilities rather than simply providing access to information. This requires addressing what Van Dijk (2020) identifies as the sequential nature of digital inequality, where material access must be followed by skills access, usage access, and finally benefit access.

The transformation documented in this analysis suggests the emergence of what might be termed "digital health citizenship" - a new form of health engagement that combines rights and responsibilities in the digital realm. This concept requires rethinking health education to include digital health literacy, critical algorithm literacy, and ethical digital health practices. It also necessitates new forms of governance that address the transnational nature of digital health information while respecting local contexts and needs.

In conclusion, the digital transformation of health-seeking behaviors represents more than technological change; it constitutes a fundamental reshaping of health epistemologies, relationships, and identities across global contexts. Addressing this transformation requires interdisciplinary approaches that combine technological, philosophical, behavioral, and ethical perspectives to ensure that the digital health future enhances rather than diminishes human health and flourishing.

This exploratory study has synthesized current literature to map the generational contours of health-seeking behavior in the age of "Dr. Google," revealing a significant convergence of practices between developed and developing nations. The findings affirm that health-seeking behaviors and digital health literacy are stratified generationally, with younger cohorts demonstrating a more proactive, socially integrated, and digitally native approach. While a pronounced disparity persists for older and rural populations in the developing world, this divide is markedly minimal among younger, urbanized demographics globally, suggesting that digital access is a powerful leveling force. The research further identifies key commonalities that transcend national contexts, including the widespread normalization of pre-consultation online research, a universal vulnerability to medical misinformation, and the global ascendancy of a patient-as-consumer mindset, all catalyzed by the pervasive reach of mobile digital technology. Consequently, these emergent behaviors are fundamentally reshaping the practice of medicine, compelling a transition from a paternalistic model to a collaborative partnership. This shift places new demands on clinicians to navigate and validate patient-sourced information and creates systemic pressures on healthcare infrastructures worldwide.

The central thesis posits that the digitalization of health information has generated a novel, transnational layer of health behavior that operates in parallel to, and often disrupts, traditional national healthcare systems. Addressing this new reality therefore necessitates responses that are equally transnational and multi-faceted. For public health bodies and governments, action should focus on the development and promotion of transnational standards for accrediting online health information, such as a global "trustmark" for certified health websites, coupled with investment in national digital health literacy campaigns specifically tailored for different generational cohorts, with particular emphasis on older adults and other vulnerable groups. Technology companies, including search engines and social media platforms, must be engaged as accountable partners in public health. This entails a redesign of algorithms to prioritize evidence-based sources from accredited institutions over content optimized for user engagement, a process requiring greater transparency and formal collaboration with the public health community. Concurrently, medical education and professional development must evolve; curricula for medical and nursing students should be updated to incorporate training on effectively addressing patient-sourced online information, debunking misinformation with empathy, and guiding patients toward credible resources. Continuing medical education should likewise offer workshops to refine these essential "digital age" communication skills. For practicing clinicians, this evolution necessitates an embrace of the new roles of information curator and interpreter. By proactively recommending trusted websites and applications to patients, clinicians can guide their online journeys preemptively and must develop strategies for efficiently integrating discussion of patient-brought information into time-constrained consultations.

Future research must now advance beyond exploratory synthesis to undertake rigorous empirical investigation. Longitudinal cohort studies are needed to track the digital health behaviors of different generations across diverse national contexts. Furthermore, quantitative studies are required to precisely measure the impact of online information on clinical outcomes, decision-making processes, and healthcare utilization rates on a global scale. It is only through the generation of this robust evidence that we can hope to fully optimize the promise of "Dr. Google" while effectively mitigating its profound and accompanying risks.

1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
2. Alomar, D., Almashmoum, M., Eleftheriou, I., Whelan, P., & Ainsworth, J. (2024). The impact of patient access to electronic health records on health care engagement: Systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 26, e56473. https://doi.org/10.2196/56473
3. Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. University of Minnesota Press.
4. Chen, J., & Wang, Y. (2021). Social Media Use for Health Purposes: Systematic Review. Journal of medical Internet research, 23(5), e17917. https://doi.org/10.2196/17917
5. Choi, N. G., & Dinitto, D. M. (2013). Internet use among older adults: association with health needs, psychological capital, and social capital. Journal of medical Internet research, 15(5), e97. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2333
6. Foucault, M. (2003). The Birth of the Clinic (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203715109
7. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of society (Vol. 1). Beacon Press.
8. Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld: From garden to earth. Indiana University Press.
9. Jia, X., Pang, Y., & Liu, L. S. (2021). Online health information seeking behavior: A systematic review. Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 9(12), 1740. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9121740
10. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
11. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press.
12. Osei Asibey, B., Agyemang, S., & Boakye Dankwah, A. (2017). The internet use for health information seeking among Ghanaian University students: A cross-sectional study. International Journal of Telemedicine and Applications, 2017, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/1756473
13. Parikh, RB (2013). Virtual Mentor. 2013;15(11):923-925. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2013.15.11.fred1-1311.
14. Powell, J. A., Darvell, M., & Gray, J. A. (2003). The doctor, the patient and the world-wide web: how the internet is changing healthcare. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 96(2), 74–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/014107680309600206
15. Rizwan, M., Ahmad, T., Qi, X., Murad, M. A., Baig, M., Sagga, A. K., Tariq, S., Baig, F., Naz, R., & Hui, J. (2021). Social media use, psychological distress and knowledge, attitude, and practices regarding the COVID-19 among a sample of the population of Pakistan. Frontiers in Medicine, 8, 754121. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.754121
16. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.
17. Starcevic, V., & Berle, D. (2013). Cyberchondria: towards a better understanding of excessive health-related Internet use. Expert review of neurotherapeutics, 13(2), 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1586/ern.12.162
18. Starcevic, V., & Berle, D. (2019). Cyberchondria: An old phenomenon in a new guise? In Mental Health in the Digital Age (pp. 91-109). Elsevier.
19. Tan, S. S. L., & Goonawardene, N. (2017). Internet health information seeking and the patient-physician relationship: A systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, *19*(1), e9. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.5729
20. Tan, S. S., & Goonawardene, N. (2017). Internet health information seeking and the patient-physician relationship: A systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, *19*(1), e9. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.5729
21. Van der Vaart, R., & Drossaert, C. (2017). Development of the digital health literacy instrument: Measuring a broad spectrum of health 1.0 and health 2.0 skills. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(1), e27. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6709
22. Dijk, J. V. (2020). The digital divide. Polity.
23. Wang, Y., McKee, M., Torbica, A., & Stuckler, D. (2019). Systematic literature review on the spread of health-related misinformation on social media. Social Science & Medicine, 240, 112552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112552
24. World Health Organization. (2020). *Global strategy on digital health 2020-2025*. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/global-strategy-on-digital-health/gs4dh.pdf
25. World Health Organization. (2021). Global strategy on digital health 2020-2025. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/documents/gs4dhdaa2a9f352b0445bafbc79ca799dce4d.pdf
26. Xie, B., He, D., Mercer, T., Wang, Y., Wu, D., Fleischmann, K. R., Zhang, Y., Yoder, L. H., Stephens, K. K., Mackert, M., & Lee, M. K. (2020). Global health crises are also information crises: A call to action. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 71(12), 1419-1423. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24357
27. Zenone, M., Ow, N., & Barbic, S. (2021). TikTok and public health: a proposed research agenda. BMJ Global Health, 6(11), e007648. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-007648