A Content Analysis of Health-Related Epigenetic Information in YouTube Videos

Abstract

Purpose:

This study aimed to explore how health-related epigenetic concepts are depicted in YouTube videos, a widely accessed platform for informal science education. As epigenetics becomes increasingly relevant to medical therapeutics, it is essential to understand what information is being disseminated in the public sphere.

Method:

We conducted a content analysis of 296 YouTube videos about epigenetics that were under 10 minutes in length. We transcribed and analyzed the videos using an iteratively developed codebook and then categorized relevant codes as categories.

Results:

We identified seven categories: 1) defining epigenetics, 2) causes of epigenetic changes, 3) effects of epigenetic change, 4) epigenetic inheritability, 5) application of epigenetics, 6) personal control, and 7) epigenetic mysticism. While the content about the molecular epigenetic mechanisms mostly aligned with the latest scientific findings, there were numerous unsubstantiated and exaggerated claims about effects of epigenetics on human health, especially disease outcomes.

Conclusion:

We identified several scientific concepts described on YouTube regarding epigenetics. Our findings also reveal what information about epigenetics is widely shared in the public sphere, helping identify key misconceptions to address and guiding the development of strategies for accurate science communication.

Introduction

Epigenetics is the study of changes in the genome that control gene expression or cellular phenotype without changing the DNA sequence.¹ Mechanisms include chemical processes that can be influenced by environmental factors, exposure to severe and persistent stress, and health-related behaviors such as diet, exercise, or tobacco use.^2,3 In addition to environmental exposures, the underlying genetic sequence can also shape epigenetic states. This interplay between genetic and epigenetic states occurs for example through DNA sequence motifs that influence where epigenetic marks are placed, or mutations and genetic variants that may affect the function of epigenetic regulators themselves.⁴ Epigenetics is an emerging field of scientific inquiry. The term was first coined in 1942 by Waddington, who proposed the concept of epigenetic mechanisms to explain heritable changes .⁵ However, the definition of epigenetics has evolved significantly since the pre-molecular era, now focusing on molecular mechanisms that regulate gene activity.⁶ Current research in epigenetics explores human health, chronic diseases (e.g., cancer, type-2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases), gene-environment interactions, and aging.^6–9 This understanding of links between epigenetic modification and disease risk has also resulted in epigenetic-based therapeutics to treat diseases, such as cancers in the male and female reproductive organs, leukemia, breast cancer, lung cancer, myelodysplastic syndromes, and Huntington’s disease.¹⁰

Due to its increasing relevance to human health, it is important to ensure that the public understands the emerging science of epigenetics. A lack of public understanding can create information environments that foster misinformation, stigmatization, and exploitation. The broader field of genetics has been weaponized by some to marginalize, oppress, and discriminate against a variety of populations. For example, Black individuals face bias in medical diagnostics, such as spirometry reference equations that use self-reported race instead of genetic ancestry. This forces Black patients to demonstrate more severe lung damage before being classified as abnormal.¹¹ Indigenous peoples suffer from persistent underrepresentation in genomic databases, leading to frequent misdiagnoses.¹² Jewish communities have been targeted through pseudoscientific justifications, as seen in the Nazi regime’s use of genetics to justify the Holocaust.¹³ Brown communities are impacted by eugenics-based theories like the “great replacement” conspiracy, which fuels anti-immigrant rhetoric and policies.¹³ LGBTQIA+ individuals have been wrongly pathologized, with labels like dysmorphology, sexual deviation, or disorders of sex development, implying they need “correction.¹⁴ The growing role of epigenetics in understanding disease mechanisms and developing therapeutics has also increased media coverage,^15,16 direct-to-consumer product promotions,¹⁷ and public interest in using epigenetic science to explain non-scientific social phenomena.^18,19

Characterizing the emerging landscape of epigenetic information in the public sphere is necessary to develop future communication strategies that promote a more comprehensive understanding of this complex subject. Previous research that evaluated epigenetic information in traditional news media found a high prevalence of news stories about parental and individual responsibility to prevent epigenetic harms, and a depiction of epigenetics as a mechanism to “take control” over one’s life.¹⁶ Another study developed and analyzed a database of epigenetic discourses based on web searches and they also found common themes of control and responsibility.¹⁹ Despite the increasing public reliance on social media as a primary source of science information, epigenetic information on social media is yet to be analyzed.²⁰ YouTube is the most widely used social media platform among U.S. adults (83% vs. 68% for Facebook and 33% for TikTok in 2021) and is the second most visited website globally after Google.^21,22 Moreover, YouTube is one of the most popular sites for science education.²³ Thus, the current study aims to understand how health-related epigenetics concepts are depicted on YouTube. To accomplish this aim, we specifically ask, what are commonly-discussed concepts about epigenetics in YouTube videos?

Materials and Methods

Procedure

We conducted a content analysis applying multiple methods. First, we conducted a conventional qualitative content analysis of YouTube videos, allowing categories to emerge through immersion in the data.²⁴ We also applied summative content analysis to identify the frequency with which each category appeared in the dataset.²⁴ We began by conducting a YouTube search on October 17, 2023, to identify videos about epigenetics. We conducted the search using Apify, a web data extraction platform that allows users to input search terms and adjust settings such as the number of videos retrieved.²⁵ The search terms entered for this study were: epigenetic, epigenetics, epigenome, epigenomic, and epigenomics; no limits were placed on date of publication. Due to time, staffing, and budget constraints, we limited our search to 500 regular YouTube videos and 100 YouTube “shorts”(videos of one minute or shorter posted vertically by the publishers on YouTube, contrasting the horizontal layout of regular YouTube videos). Apify retrieves videos based on YouTube’s default search algorithm (similar to manually selecting the top results).²⁵ Using Apify helped us reduce the algorithm bias of YouTube since YouTube algorithms, even in incognito mode, can utilize IP address and location data. ²⁶ We excluded videos longer than 10 minutes, because 1) shorter videos are recommended for online education and engagement^27,28, and 2) most videos in our dataset were already under 10 minutes, allowing us to maximize inclusion while respecting resource constraints of the research team. Additional inclusion criteria required videos to 1) be in English language, 2) define or describe epigenetics, and 3) mention how epigenetics relates to human health, living, or society. Videos were also excluded if they were cut off in the middle of a sentence or had technical glitch that cut off the audio.

Analyses

The first author, with the help of two undergraduate research assistants, transcribed the videos using a YouTube transcription website,²⁹ and then read through each transcript while watching the video to confirm accuracy. After making additional corrections, if needed, the transcripts were imported to NVivo version 12 for coding. We collected information about the characteristics (e.g., presentation type, narrators’ apparent race and sex; see Table 1) of the videos and the channels that uploaded them. We then used an iterative process to develop a codebook to code the content of the videos. First, AR and EW identified codes from an initial reading of approximately thirty randomly-selected transcripts and produced the preliminary definitions and examples for each code without any pre-existing framework. Then, three coders (AR, ISM, AA) coded a random selection (15%) of all videos. They met weekly to review the codes and refined the codebook by revising the definitions and adding codes if necessary. The refined codebook was used to code another randomly selected 15% of the remaining videos. Two of the three coders (AR, ISM, AA) were assigned to independently code each transcript, and the third acted as a tiebreaker in cases of disagreement. Further refinements of the codebook were made as needed. The remaining transcripts were then coded by AR and ISM. They met weekly to resolve any disagreements or differences in coding. Multiple codes could be assigned to the same section of a transcript.

Table 1.

Characteristics of YouTube videos that referenced epigenetics (N=294)

Characteristics		Definition/Example	N (%)
Video type	Short	Vertically oriented YouTube videos that are 60 seconds long or shorter.	78 (26.5)
	Regular	Horizontally oriented YouTube videos.	216 (73.5)
Video style (can select multiple) a	Animated/graphics with voice over		110 (37.4)
	Slideshow with voice over		47 (16.0)
	Text on graphics/animation with no voice over		13 (4.4)
	A person talking on the screen		118 (40.1)
	Conversation between two or more people		47 (16.0)
	Video no longer availableb		7 (2.4)
Channel type	News organization	News media outlet (e.g., NPR, PBS, CNN).	8 (2.7)
	Government	Federal, state/provincial, or local governments (e.g., CDC, California Department of Public Health).	2 (0.7)
	Educational institution	Organization that provides education as its main purpose (e.g., Washington University McDonnell Genome Institute).	9 (3.1)
	Commercial industry	Commercial companies that sell products (e.g., Reliv International).	5 (1.7)
	Healthcare industry	Health-care related entities including insurance and pharmaceutical companies (e.g., Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Blue Cross Blue Shield).	11 (3.7)
	Unaffiliated individual	Individual who does not reference an affiliation with an offline entity (e.g., Akison McDowell, Raw Maraby).	81 (27.6)
	Unaffiliated organization	Channels unaffiliated with any offline establishment and run by a team with production personnel, host(s) and writers, etc. (e.g., SciShow, Veritasium).	160 (54.4)
	Other	Any channels outside of the above criteria.	18 (6.1)
Apparent sex of the speaker(s)	Male presenting		102 (34.7)
	Female presenting		65 (22.1)
	Both		13 (4.4)
	Not applicablec		105 (35.7)
	Video no longer availableb		9 (3.0)
Apparent race of the speaker(s)	White presenting		132 (44.9)
	Not white presenting		39 (13.3)
	Both		8 (2.7)
	Not applicablec		106 (37.1)
	Video no longer available b		9 (3.0)

^aDue to multiple attribute selection, the percentages add to more than 100

^bThe videos were available at the time of transcription but when the coding process started, the videos were no longer available online

^cThe video did not include any visible and/or audible human narrator to identify apparent sex or race

After coding the complete dataset, the coders reviewed and summarized each code, and then examined the codes for conceptual similarity. Those codes that the coders identified as being conceptually similar were grouped together into categories. We used these categories to answer the research question. These categories correspond to the major concepts about epigenetics depicted in these YouTube videos. When a code was not identified as conceptually similar to other codes, we considered it a category on its own. NVivo automatically calculated category frequencies (i.e., how many transcripts have been coded with a specific category).

Results

The Apify platform returned 572 videos in total (472 regular videos and 100 shorts). Among these videos, 218 were removed because they were longer than 10 minutes; 49 videos were removed because they did not define or describe epigenetics and did not mention how epigenetics relates to human health, living or society; seven were removed because they were duplicates; three videos were removed because they were in languages other than English, and one was removed because it was a regular video but had no audio and hence was considered having technical issues. The resulting dataset consisted of 294 videos (216 regular videos and 78 shorts). The 294 videos identified for analysis were published between 2008 and 2023. The YouTube shorts varied from five seconds to one minute in duration, while the regular videos lasted between one minute and ten minutes. The videos had an average of 52,000 views (median = 1082; range = 0-25 million).

Details about the video characteristics and channels are found in Table 1. The majority of the videos (73.5%) were regular length, used a format where a human speaks on screen (40.1%), and were uploaded by YouTube channels with no offline organizational affiliations (54.4%). We identified seven categories reflecting the concepts related to epigenetics that were depicted in the YouTube videos we analyzed. These categories and their codes are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2:

Themes about epigenetics in YouTube videos (N=294 videos)^a

Category (frequency)b	Codes (frequency)c	Exemplar quote
Defining epigenetics (n=179, 60.9%)	Molecular basis of epigenetics (171, 95.5%)	“The field of epigenetic inheritance investigates the transmission of non-genetic information from one generation to the next, influencing gene expression and phenotype.” (#3)
	Pedagogical/educational description (3, 1.7%)	“Studying environmental epigenetics can help us understand the long-term effects of these exposures and develop strategies to mitigate their harmful impact on human health.” (#210)
	Linguistic meaning of epigenetics (32, 17.9%)	“This field is called epigenetics. It means above genetics and has to do with how nature and nurture interact.” (#239)
Causes of epigenetic changes (n= 190, 64.6%)	Individual behavior induces epigenetic changes (128, 67.4%)	“Lifestyle choices hugely impact our health, but they can also cause epigenetic changes. A balanced diet, regular exercise, and avoiding drugs and alcohol all lead to a healthy epigenome.” (#111)
	Environmental pollutants induce epigenetic changes (34, 17.9%)	“Studies have shown that exposure to environmental toxins can alter the epigenetic marks on genes involved in reproductive function, potentially leading to reduced fertility.” (#98)
	Environment (general) induces epigenetic changes (130, 68.4%)	“Your epigenome can change in response to your environments, and so your epigenome will change much more frequently over the course of your life than your genome does.” (#28)
	Stress and trauma induce epigenetic changes (54, 28.4%)	“This shows that childhood trauma can cause epigenetic changes in our bodies.” (#255)
Effects of epigenetic changes (n=155, 52.7%)	Epigenetics influence individual behavior, personality, society, and non-disease related wellbeing (61, 39.4%)	“Epigenetics can change the way our genes translate into phenotype, into the way we look, feel, and perform” (#61). Epigenetic change reaches its dramatic culmination in speech, writing, and communication of all sorts.” (#79)
	Risk of diseases due to epigenetic changes (107, 69.0%)	“Certain epigenetic modifications have been linked to changes in the risk of developing certain diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes.” (#76)
	Epigenetics influence/reverse prior modifications (42, 27.1%)	“What separates epigenetic modifications from genetic modifications is that epigenetic modifications are reversible. Several mechanisms exist to replace methylated cytosine molecules with unmethylated ones. Mechanisms also exist to inhibit maintenance DNMTs from replicating methylation patterns as the cell divides.” (#264)
Epigenetic inheritability (n= 108, 36.7%)	Behavior or personality (20, 18.5%)	“If you come from a long line of warriors, that’s epigenetics. If you come from a long line of strong, hard-working people, that’s also epigenetics.” (#27)
	Health condition (31, 28.7%)	“Your grandmother was making dietary decisions that affect you today as we experience all these new strange epidemics: diabetes, autoimmune disorders, cancers that weren’t appearing in previous generations. It’s starting to look like these may be caused by epigenetic information passed down from our parents.” (#333)
	Molecular changes (61, 56.5%)	“The epigenetic changes can influence chromatin structure and, consequently, the gene expression. And these changes can be inherited during cell division.” (#286)
	Other heritability (62, 57.4%)	“Traumatic experiences endured by our ancestors can leave imprints on our DNA. This is known as ancestral trauma, and it’s like an invisible thread that keeps us connected to their struggles. Epigenetics tells us how our genes can be influenced by our environment, including trauma that has passed from generation to generation to generation.” (#70)
Application of epigenetics (n=44, 15.0%)	Clinical and diagnostic applications, therapies, drugs (21, 47.7%)	“Epigenetic drugs and therapies are being developed to modify or reset aberrant epigenetic marks associated with various diseases, including cancer, offering new treatment options and improving patient outcomes.” (#210)
	Direct-to-consumer products and companies (26, 59.1%)	“[Company X] will commercialize their proprietary genetic and epigenetic sequencing technology, which easily integrates into existing sequencing platforms to enable more information to be read from DNA at less cost.” (#130)
Personal control (n= 86, 29.3%)	Statements of taking personal control (86, 100%)	“Positive thoughts and emotions can activate genes associated with health and well-being. On the other hand, negative thoughts and chronic stress can activate genes associated with inflammation and dysfunction.” (#58)
Epigenetic mysticism (n=25, 8.5%)	Epigenetic mysticism (25, 100%)	“Epigenetics manifest as our embodied Karma. So, every time we take a deep breath rather than yell, every time we do that practice of going into our heart and feeling our needs rather than projecting, right? Every time we make a new decision, we are changing our Karma.” (#83)

^aThe percentage of codes within a category may not add up to 100% because double-coding was allowed.

^bThe frequencies for the themes were calculated in NVivo by identifying the total number of unique videos with at least one of the codes that the category was comprised of. The percentage of categories was calculated by dividing the category frequency by the total number of videos (296).

^cThe frequencies for the codes were calculated automatically by NVivo: the number of videos coded with a specific code. The percentage, on the other hand, was calculated by dividing the frequency of the code by the frequency of the theme.

Defining epigenetics was identified as a category in 179 (61%) of the analyzed videos. Videos reflecting this category included an explicit definition of epigenetics, which encompassed three codes: molecular basis of epigenetics, pedagogical/educational definition, and linguistic meaning of epigenetics. The first of these codes, molecular basis of epigenetics, was the most common, and included explanations of how epigenetics functions at the molecular level (e.g., turning genes on and off), and the different biochemical processes through which epigenetic modifications occur (e.g., DNA methylation, histone modification). A small number of videos included educational descriptions of epigenetics as a field of scientific query (e.g., a new science, or a branch of genetics studies) or promotion of a course that teaches epigenetics (e.g., an “exciting new course”). Several videos explained the etymology of ‘epigenetics’ (e.g., “epi” means above).

Causes of epigenetic changes were mentioned in 190 (65%) videos. This category focused on the antecedents of epigenetic modifications, gene expression, and/or turning genes on or off. It includes how individual behaviors (e.g., diet, exercise, smoking habits), environmental pollutants (e.g., toxic chemical, air pollution), other environmental conditions (e.g., neighborhood, geographic location, or unspecified environmental factors), and stress or trauma (e.g., adverse childhood effects, generational trauma) can induce epigenetic changes.

Effects of epigenetic changes appeared in 155 (53%) videos. This category examined the consequences of epigenetic modifications. Three codes, reflecting three factors influenced by epigenetic changes, were comprised in this category: 1) epigenetics influence individual behavior, personality, society, and non-disease related wellbeing, 2) risk of diseases due to epigenetic changes, and 3) epigenetics influence/reverses prior modifications. In terms of the first code, the most frequently mentioned aspect of human health influenced by epigenetic modifications was aging (e.g., epigenetic modifications to slow down aging), personality traits (e.g., hardworking, anxious), and cognitive processes (e.g., perceiving reality, managing day-to-day emotions). A couple of videos mentioned epigenetics influencing human society and language. Regarding the second code, risk of disease due to epigenetic modifications frequently included risk of cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s disease. Obesity and mental health conditions like depression or anxiety were also identified as being triggered by epigenetic changes. Finally, with the third code, epigenetic influence was mentioned in terms of its reversibility, especially, the reversibility of aging and certain diseases. Some videos also indicated that disease risk can be reduced or reversed by epigenetic modifications. Some videos that talked about epigenetic influence on aging also talked about epigenetic clocks in our bodies that can be slowed down allowing aging to be reversed.

Epigenetic inheritability, identified in 108 (37%) videos, captured statements about the transmission of epigenetic modifications across generations. This included explanations of how certain behaviors and personality characteristics, diseases or health conditions, and molecular changes can be passed down. It also highlighted the long-term implications of epigenetic changes beyond an individual’s lifetime (e.g., generational trauma).

Applications of epigenetics appeared in 44 (15%) videos. This category covered clinical and technological advancements related to epigenetics. It included discussions about direct-to-consumer products, medical diagnostics, therapeutic interventions, and innovations using epigenetics from biotechnology companies or research centers. Statements under this category often presented epigenetics as a promising field for future medical breakthroughs.

Personal control, mentioned in 86 (29%) videos, captured content that are prescriptive and promote the idea of taking individual-level control or responsibility over one’s epigenetic outcomes through diet, exercise, mindfulness practices, or changing one’s external environment (e.g., moving to a healthier neighborhood). These statements emphasize individuals having the choice of or control over one’s epigenetic modifications, using prescriptive terms like “should,” “ought,” “capable of,” or “can.” Some of the statements in this category framed epigenetics as providing humans a way to stop being a “victim of their genes,” due to this perceived control over epigenetic modifications.

Finally, epigenetic mysticism, mentioned in 25 (9%) videos, captured statements made about epigenetics in “New Age” spiritual language (e.g., energy, essence, vibrations, karma), or statements where epigenetics is used as evidence for one’s religious beliefs (e.g., intelligent design over evolution), or exaggerated claims about what epigenetics is/can do without providing any scientific evidence anywhere in the video (e.g., “insights into quantum physics and epigenetics” holding the key to understanding the “hidden power within us”).

Discussion

We identified several major categories, corresponding to major concepts, about epigenetics that were presented in the analyzed YouTube videos. The first major finding of this study is that the majority of the content was about the scientific mechanisms of epigenetic changes (categories of defining epigenetics, cause of epigenetic changes, and epigenetic inheritability), their potential implications for human life (effects of epigenetic changes), and applications for clinical practice (application of epigenetics) — comprising five of the seven categories. The information provided in the content about scientific mechanisms of epigenetic changes was generally consistent with the latest scientific findings in epigenetics. For example, the videos’ description of molecular processes of epigenetic changes through DNA methylation, histone modification, and non-coding RNA align with the current scientific knowledge.³⁰ Similarly, video descriptions of the causes of epigenetic changes primarily being driven by diet, behavior, and environmental factors are consistent with present findings in environmental epigenetics (e.g., how life experiences, habits, nutrition, and our environment impact our epigenome). Content on potential implications of epigenetic changes in human life, specifically in disease related effects, was also aligned with the current scientific understanding, except for content coded as epigenetic mysticism. For example, risk of cancer,³³ type-2 diabetes,³⁴ and Alzheimer’s disease³⁵ being related to epigenetic changes is supported by scientific evidence.

The second major finding of this study was the persistent lack of details. This is an interesting finding. While we did not code for “what is missing” in the videos, as we concluded the coding process, we reflected on a lack of details about specific mechanisms through which causes, effects, and processes of epigenetic modifications occur. Videos that only mentioned the molecular basis of epigenetics did talk about the specific mechanisms on a biochemical level. But the videos that stated what behavioral or external factors could cause epigenetic modifications or changes in gene expression did not identify or state a physiological process through which such modifications can occur. Nor did the videos provide a temporal requirement for an epigenetic modification to occur (e.g., how long must one be exposed to stress or toxins to trigger an epigenetic change?). For example, videos discussing environmental and behavioral causes of epigenetic changes rarely mentioned how or through what mechanism a specific nutritional factor or exposure to a specific chemical can trigger beneficial or harmful epigenetic change. Similarly, when discussing epigenetic inheritability, the fact that these inheritance processes are still being explored or that the inheritance processes in humans are not clear, were not always explicitly mentioned in the videos.³⁰ Such lack of details about the specific pathways through which epigenetic changes occur or how epigenetic markers can be passed down in humans might affect people’s interpretation about how epigenetic processes manifest in humans. These videos also did not mention whether the lack of such details was due to a lack of evidence in the current state of the science.

Absence of information was also notable in videos containing statements of personal control. A lack of acknowledgement that structural barriers and systemic oppression might constrain people’s control over exposure to environmental risks and their choices in making health-related decisions could perpetuate blame and a heightened personal responsibility, especially among marginalized groups.^16,36 Statements emphasizing personal control in these videos align with previous findings of epigenetic content in the news media.¹⁶ For example, a few of the videos with the personal control category explicitly mentioned mothers’ “choices” for the health of the future generation.¹⁶ Such framing of mothers having choices without mentioning environmental, structural, and systemic barriers has the potential to place blame on women for their circumstances and behaviors before, during, and after pregnancy. Bioethicists have cautioned about this risk repeatedly.³⁷

Finally, a small proportion of videos contained unsubstantiated claims about epigenetics. While some of the applications of epigenetics seemed evidence-based, direct-to-consumer products that claimed to provide health benefits by altering an individual’s epigenome or “age clock” (#94) were not. While there are epigenetic clocks that are used in laboratories for research, epigenetic clocks for public use to determine one’s biological age vs. chronological age are yet to be validated by researchers.^38,39 Similarly, no scientific evidence supports assertions made by some videos that one’s thoughts and “control of bodily energy” (#72) can affect the development and course of different diseases. Beliefs in unsubstantiated claims about health and healthcare have led to adverse health outcomes (e.g., refusing treatment), financial harm (e.g., buying useless products), and psychological harm (e.g., self-blame for a disease).⁴⁰

Strengths and limitations:

The current study has characterized part of the communication landscape about epigenetics on popular science-education sites like YouTube. This study also analyzed epigenetics-related content promoted by a diverse group of content creators- experts and non-experts. Previous studies have mostly focused on epigenetic information disseminated by traditional news media or by analyzing the most prevalent web search results on the topic.^16,19 As more people are relying on their social networks and on free platforms like YouTube for science education,⁴¹ our study helps identify what the broader population might be exposed to regarding epigenetic information.

The study had several limitations. First, we only included videos that were ten minutes long or shorter. This excluded longer talks and lectures on epigenetics that might be viewed by people who have a stronger topical interest. Moreover, not all videos included data related to audience interaction such as view counts, comment counts, and the content of the comments. Thus, we cannot claim anything about what topics about epigenetics are getting more attention or engagement than the others. Future research can focus on identifying the relationships between audience interaction and epigenetic topics. Additionally, while the current study focuses on the what of epigenetic information on YouTube, a future study can also identify the how of such communication to identify communication strategies applied in these videos. We also did not code videos specifically for accuracy of information, which can be a goal for future studies.

Conclusion

These findings can guide future epigenetic communication strategies. Now that we have begun to characterize how social media discusses epigenetics, what information is supported by evidence, what does not exist but needs to, and what needs to be corrected or stated with concrete evidence, health communicators and researchers can focus on how to address these informational issues. Moreover, these findings can help researchers understand how to develop strategies to better convey epigenetic information into the public sphere. Finally, these findings can provide clinicians preliminary insight into what information about epigenetics their patients may have been exposed to, to be able to better understand where patient beliefs may be coming from and how to better inform their patients about what epigenetics claims are—and are not—supported by scientific evidence.

Data Availability:

The data are available upon request to the authors.