The most-viewed sunscreen content on TikTok overwhelmingly promoted sunscreen use, but the small share of videos that criticized sunscreen on health grounds drew disproportionately high audience engagement, according to a content analysis in PLOS Digital Health. The analysis examined 971 of the highly viewed videos posted under five of the most popular sunscreen-related hashtags.
Why It Matters for Physicians
In the study, the authors noted that sunscreen misinformation drew attention from public health bodies in 2024 and that TikTok is among the most-used platforms, particularly among younger users—concerns that prompted their analysis. For physicians, the findings may offer a snapshot of what patients are likely encountering on one widely used platform. The study found that the dominant message on TikTok promoted sunscreen, while claims that sunscreen is harmful or unnecessary were uncommon among the most-visible videos. The researchers noted, however, that these critique-focused videos—though few—attracted engagement out of proportion to their numbers, which they suggested may give contrarian ideas outsized visibility among certain audiences.
Key Findings
The final data set comprised 971 videos that together had drawn more than 2.4 billion views. Most—843 videos (87%)—promoted sunscreen use, and the promotion was often commercial: 599 videos (62%) promoted specific products, and 112 (12%) included a purchase option such as a discount code.
When videos gave reasons to use sunscreen, they most often cited prevention of skin damage (17%), acne or skin flare-ups (15%), and aging or wrinkling (12%); cancer prevention was mentioned in 59 videos (6%).
Health-related critiques were uncommon. A total of 58 videos (6%) raised health concerns about sunscreen, whether broad or product-specific. Among broad critiques, 15 videos (2%) claimed sunscreen causes harm and 12 (1%) claimed it prevents the benefits of sun exposure or is unnecessary. Most videos with critique also promoted sunscreen; only 16 videos—under 2% of the sample—criticized sunscreen without any promotion.
Medical professionals, most often dermatologists, appeared in 81 videos (8%) and were referenced in 15 others.
To compare engagement, the researchers grouped videos as promotion only (801 videos), promotion and critique (42 videos), or critique only (16 videos), then analyzed views, likes, shares, and comments. Mean views did not differ to a statistically significant degree across the groups. Compared with promotion-only videos, critique-only videos had roughly twice the mean number of likes, more than 4 times the mean number of shares, and about 3 times the mean number of comments. Videos that combined promotion and critique had statistically significantly more shares and comments, but not likes, than promotion-only videos.
What This Does Not Show
This was a descriptive content analysis conducted at a single point in time, with data collected in late September and early October 2024. It cannot establish that critique content caused higher engagement—only that the two were associated. The sample was limited to the most-viewed, English-language videos drawn from five sunscreen-related hashtags and is not representative of all sunscreen content, TikTok as a whole, other platforms, or non-English videos.
The engagement comparisons rested on small numbers of videos with critique—16 with only critique and 42 with promotion and critique—warranting caution in interpretation. The researchers did not analyze the text of comments, so the higher comment counts on videos with critique cannot be read as agreement; comments may have included disagreement, correction, or debunking. No clinical or behavioral outcomes were measured, and the study does not indicate whether exposure to any video affected patients’ sunscreen use, beliefs, or skin-cancer risk. Creator demographics were coded by visual interpretation as a broad overview rather than a definitive characterization, and the researchers noted they did not perform formal thematic analysis.
Clinical Context
In the study, the researchers catalogued several recurring critique themes, including claims that sunscreen is unnecessary, that unprotected sun exposure is beneficial, and that sunscreen ingredients are toxic, carcinogenic, hormone-disrupting, or environmentally harmful. Familiarity with these recurring claims may help clinicians frame patient conversations.
In an interview with Conexiant News, corresponding author Alessandro Marcon said clinicians should avoid dismissing such concerns as “nonsensical or trivial.” Instead, he said, physicians can acknowledge the question and then reorient the discussion toward the evidence that skin cancer rates are increasing globally and that limiting ultraviolet (UV) exposure remains important. Recommended measures include avoiding sunburns, limiting time in the sun during peak UV periods, wearing protective clothing, and using sunscreen.
Marcon also noted that there is “currently no good evidence showing that sunscreen is leading to vitamin D deficiencies,” adding that the public health risks of UV exposure outweigh unsupported concerns about sunscreen toxicity. “People shouldn’t fear the sun or avoid it altogether,” he said, “but take steps to be in the sun responsibly.”
The analysis also found that the pro-sunscreen majority often emphasized cosmetic and product-related benefits—such as acne control, antiaging, and product feel—while skin-cancer prevention appeared in 6% of videos. The researchers described this emphasis as a missed opportunity to communicate sunscreen’s health rationale, although the study could not determine whether sunscreen’s health benefits were implicitly understood.
Marcon said that emphasis on product experience could still give clinicians an opening: patients who want to use sunscreen but dislike the feel of certain products can be reminded that a wide range of options is available. At the same time, he said, patients should know that not all products offer sufficient sun protection factor and should evaluate products carefully.
Some videos expressed a preference for Korean or other international brands, citing perceptions that US standards for UV filters had not been updated.
What Physicians Should Know
For physicians, the key takeaway is that anti-sunscreen content was uncommon but drew disproportionate interaction in likes, shares, and comments. However, the study assessed online content rather than patient behavior, and the engagement comparisons rested on small numbers of critique-focused videos.
Marcon said physicians should recognize that as patients spend more time online and on social media, some may bring more fears and doubts about health science into the exam room. Those concerns may not always be resolved by data alone, he said, because misinformation can be tied to identity and worldview and can generate emotions such as surprise and fear. Fringe health-science ideas, particularly when packaged with emotional claims or commercial products, should be met with caution and suspicion, he said.
For clinicians, the practical takeaway is not that TikTok is saturated with anti-sunscreen messaging, but that a small amount of emotionally resonant misinformation may still shape the questions patients ask. The researchers argued that this pattern supports a broader point about health misinformation—that it “does not have to be ‘rife’ to be of potential concern.”
The study characterizes online content rather than clinical efficacy or patient outcomes, and its findings should not be read as evidence for changing established clinical guidance on sun protection.
Disclosures: The study was led by Alessandro Marcon of the Health Law Institute at the University of Alberta, and colleagues. Two of the researchers received funding support from a Canadian Cancer Society Challenge Grant; the funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, the decision to publish, or manuscript preparation. The researchers declared no competing interests.
Source: PLOS Digital Health