Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27077792›Full record

ReviewHealth promotion and chronic disease prevention in Canada : research, policy and practice2016

Interactive social media interventions to promote health equity: an overview of reviews.

V Welch, J Petkovic, J Pardo Pardo, T Rader, P Tugwell

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Health promotion and chronic disease prevention in Canada : research, policy and practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 110 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
110citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Harnessing Digital Videos to Promote Cancer Prevention and Education: a Systematic Review of the Literature from 2013-2018.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2020
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Assessment of prostate cancer awareness and screening knowledge among men in Najran, Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2025
    Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

V WelchBruyère Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
J PetkovicCentre for Global Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
J Pardo PardoCentre for Global Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
T RaderOttawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
P TugwellBruyère Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSocial media use has been increasing in public health and health promotion because it can remove geographic and physical access barriers. However, these interventions also have the potential to increase health inequities for people who do not have access to or do not use social media. In this paper, we aim to assess the effects of interactive social media interventions on health outcomes, behaviour change and health equity.

methodsWe conducted a rapid response overview of systematic reviews. We used a sensitive search strategy to identify systematic reviews and included those that focussed on interventions allowing two-way interaction such as discussion forums, social networks (e.g. Facebook and Twitter), blogging, applications linked to online communities and media sharing.

resultsEleven systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria. Most interventions addressed by the reviews included online discussion boards or similar strategies, either as stand-alone interventions or in combination with other interventions. Seven reviews reported mixed effects on health outcomes and healthy behaviours. We did not find disaggregated analyses across characteristics associated with disadvantage, such as lower socioeconomic status or age. However, some targeted studies reported that social media interventions were effective in specific populations in terms of age, socioeconomic status, ethnicities and place of residence. Four reviews reported qualitative benefits such as satisfaction, finding information and improved social support.

conclusionSocial media interventions were effective in certain populations at risk for disadvantage (youth, older adults, low socioeconomic status, rural), which indicates that these interventions may be effective for promoting health equity. However, confirmation of effectiveness would require further study. Several reviews raised the issue of acceptability of social media interventions. Only four studies reported on the level of intervention use and all of these reported low use. More research on established social media platforms with existing social networks is needed, particularly in populations at risk for disadvantage, to assess effects on health outcomes and health equity.

Indexed as

Health EquitySocial MediaHealth BehaviorHealth PromotionHumansProgram EvaluationReview Literature as Topicdisadvantaged populationshealth equityhealth promotionpublic healthsocial media

Identifiers

PMID27077792
PMCPMC4964231

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.