Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24518354›Full record

ReviewJournal of medical Internet research2014

Social media: a review and tutorial of applications in medicine and health care.

Francisco Jose Grajales, Samuel Sheps, Kendall Ho, Helen Novak-Lauscher, Gunther Eysenbach

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of medical Internet research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 252 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
252citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

252 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Time Spent on Social Media and Risk of Depression in Adolescents: A Dose-Response Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Educational Processes for Health and Disease Self-Management in Public Health: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Twitter as a Tool for Health Research: A Systematic Review.American journal of public health · 2017
    Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

192 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Francisco Jose GrajaleseHealth Strategy Office, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. cisco@franciscograjales.com.ORCID 0000-0003-2942-4889
Samuel Sheps
Kendall Ho
Helen Novak-Lauscher
Gunther EysenbachORCID 0000-0001-6479-5330

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocial media are dynamic and interactive computer-mediated communication tools that have high penetration rates in the general population in high-income and middle-income countries. However, in medicine and health care, a large number of stakeholders (eg, clinicians, administrators, professional colleges, academic institutions, ministries of health, among others) are unaware of social media's relevance, potential applications in their day-to-day activities, as well as the inherent risks and how these may be attenuated and mitigated.

objectiveWe conducted a narrative review with the aim to present case studies that illustrate how, where, and why social media are being used in the medical and health care sectors.

methodsUsing a critical-interpretivist framework, we used qualitative methods to synthesize the impact and illustrate, explain, and provide contextual knowledge of the applications and potential implementations of social media in medicine and health care. Both traditional (eg, peer-reviewed) and nontraditional (eg, policies, case studies, and social media content) sources were used, in addition to an environmental scan (using Google and Bing Web searches) of resources.

resultsWe reviewed, evaluated, and synthesized 76 articles, 44 websites, and 11 policies/reports. Results and case studies are presented according to 10 different categories of social media: (1) blogs (eg, WordPress), (2) microblogs (eg, Twitter), (3) social networking sites (eg, Facebook), (4) professional networking sites (eg, LinkedIn, Sermo), (5) thematic networking sites (eg, 23andMe), (6) wikis (eg, Wikipedia), (7) mashups (eg, HealthMap), (8) collaborative filtering sites (eg, Digg), (9) media sharing sites (eg, YouTube, Slideshare), and others (eg, SecondLife). Four recommendations are provided and explained for stakeholders wishing to engage with social media while attenuating risk: (1) maintain professionalism at all times, (2) be authentic, have fun, and do not be afraid, (3) ask for help, and (4) focus, grab attention, and engage.

conclusionsThe role of social media in the medical and health care sectors is far reaching, and many questions in terms of governance, ethics, professionalism, privacy, confidentiality, and information quality remain unanswered. By following the guidelines presented, professionals have a starting point to engage with social media in a safe and ethical manner. Future research will be required to understand the synergies between social media and evidence-based practice, as well as develop institutional policies that benefit patients, clinicians, public health practitioners, and industry alike.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareSocial MediaSoftwareBloggingConfidentialityConsumer Health InformationInternetMedicineSocial Networkingbloggingsocial mediasocial network

Identifiers

PMID24518354
PMCPMC3936280

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.