ArticleBMJ open2013
Social media use among patients and caregivers: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 93 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
93 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Older adults and online health misinformation: a systematic literature review.BMC psychology · 2026Pooled it
- Social media-based interventions for patients with cancer: a meta-analysis and meta-regression of randomised controlled trials.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2023Pooled it
- Social Media Listening to Understand the Lived Experience of Individuals in Europe With Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Systematic Search and Content Analysis Study.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Patients' Use of Social Media for Diabetes Self-Care: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Pooled it
- Twitter as a Tool for Health Research: A Systematic Review.American journal of public health · 2017Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of Social Media Use to Discuss and View Deliberate Self-Harm Acts.PloS one · 2016Pooled it
- Mobile Phone and Web 2.0 Technologies for Weight Management: A Systematic Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2015Pooled it
- The influence of social networking sites on health behavior change: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2015Pooled it
- A systematic review of the use and effectiveness of social media in child health.BMC pediatrics · 2014Pooled it
- Social media interventions for diet and exercise behaviours: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.BMJ open · 2014Pooled it
- How to use social media to amplify your professional impact in respiratory medicine.Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2026Article
- Navigating the Prescription Drug Information System.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Review
- Care Partner Perspectives on Hypertension Management in Alzheimer Disease and Related Dementias in an Online Forum: Qualitative Thematic Analysis.JMIR nursing · 2026Article
- Identifying social media professionalism competencies in Vietnamese medical students: a modified Delphi method.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Public Engagement with Lung Cancer Screening Information: Topic Modeling of Lung Cancer-Related Reddit Posts.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
- The use of social media platforms in adult basic life support research: a scoping review.Resuscitation plus · 2025Review
- Using Natural Language Processing and Social Media Data to Understand the Lived Experience of People with Fibromyalgia.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
- Social Media Discourse Related to Caregiving for Older Adults Living With Alzheimer Disease and Related Dementias: Computational and Qualitative Study.JMIR aging · 2024Article
- Orthodontists on Social Media: Instagram's Influence.Turkish journal of orthodontics · 2024Article
33 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo map the state of the existing literature evaluating the use of social media in patient and caregiver populations.
designScoping review. DATA SOURCES: Medline, CENTRAL, ERIC, PubMed, CINAHL Plus Full Text, Academic Search Complete, Alt Health Watch, Health Source, Communication and Mass Media Complete, Web of Knowledge and ProQuest (2000-2012). STUDY SELECTION: Studies reporting primary research on the use of social media (collaborative projects, blogs/microblogs, content communities, social networking sites, virtual worlds) by patients or caregivers. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers screened studies for eligibility; one reviewer extracted data from relevant studies and a second performed verification for accuracy and completeness on a 10% sample. Data were analysed to describe which social media tools are being used, by whom, for what purpose and how they are being evaluated.
resultsTwo hundred eighty-four studies were included. Discussion forums were highly prevalent and constitute 66.6% of the sample. Social networking sites (14.8%) and blogs/microblogs (14.1%) were the next most commonly used tools. The intended purpose of the tool was to facilitate self-care in 77.1% of studies. While there were clusters of studies that focused on similar conditions (eg, lifestyle/weight loss (12.7%), cancer (11.3%)), there were no patterns in the objectives or tools used. A large proportion of the studies were descriptive (42.3%); however, there were also 48 (16.9%) randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Among the RCTs, 35.4% reported statistically significant results favouring the social media intervention being evaluated; however, 72.9% presented positive conclusions regarding the use of social media.
conclusionsThere is an extensive body of literature examining the use of social media in patient and caregiver populations. Much of this work is descriptive; however, with such widespread use, evaluations of effectiveness are required. In studies that have examined effectiveness, positive conclusions are often reported, despite non-significant findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.