ArticlePolicy & internet2015
The Impact of Online Social Networks on Health and Health Systems: A Scoping Review and Case Studies.
Article in Policy & internet, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quality and Misinformation About Health Conditions in Online Peer Support Groups: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Perception towards vaccine effectiveness in controlling COVID-19 spread in rural and urban communities: A global survey.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Examining the Pro-Eating Disorders Community on Twitter Via the Hashtag #proana: Statistical Modeling Approach.JMIR mental health · 2021Article
- New Ways of Working? A Rapid Exploration of Emerging Evidence Regarding the Care of Older People during COVID19.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Using social media to educate women and healthcare providers on endometriosis: preliminary results.JBRA assisted reproduction · 2020Article
- How does anonymous online peer communication affect prevention behavior? Evidence from a laboratory experiment.PloS one · 2018Article
- Can Online Discussion Sites Generate Quality Data for Research Purposes?Frontiers in public health · 2017Article
- Article
- Utilizing Digital Health Technologies for Patient Education in Lifestyle Medicine.American journal of lifestyle medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Interaction through online social networks potentially results in the contestation of prevailing ideas about health and health care, and to mass protest where health is put at risk or health care provision is wanting. Through a review of the academic literature and case studies of four social networking health sites (PatientsLikeMe, Mumsnet, Treatment Action Campaign, and My Pro Ana), we establish the extent to which this phenomenon is documented, seek evidence of the prevalence and character of health-related networks, and explore their structure, function, participants, and impact, seeking to understand how they came into being and how they sustain themselves. Results indicate mass protest is not arising from these established health-related networking platforms. There is evidence of changes in policy following campaigning activity prompted by experiences shared through social networking such as improved National Health Service care for miscarriage (a Mumsnet campaign). Platform owners and managers have considerable power to shape these campaigns. Social networking is also influencing health policy indirectly through increasing awareness and so demand for health care. Transient social networking about health on platforms such as Twitter were not included as case studies but may be where the most radical or destabilizing influence on health care policy might arise.
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.