Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27562728›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2016

Social media use in healthcare: A systematic review of effects on patients and on their relationship with healthcare professionals.

Edin Smailhodzic, Wyanda Hooijsma, Albert Boonstra, David J Langley

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 287 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
287citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
113.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

287 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 812 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

227 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Edin SmailhodzicFaculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. e.smailhodzic@rug.nl.
Wyanda HooijsmaFaculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Albert BoonstraFaculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
David J LangleyFaculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
University of Groningen · NLNetherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSince the emergence of social media in 2004, a growing percentage of patients use this technology for health related reasons. To reflect on the alleged beneficial and potentially harmful effects of social media use by patients, the aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the extant literature on the effects of social media use for health related reasons on patients and their relationship with healthcare professionals.

methodsWe conducted a systematic literature review on empirical research regarding the effects of social media use by patients for health related reasons. The papers we included met the following selection criteria: (1) published in a peer-reviewed journal, (2) written in English, (3) full text available to the researcher, (4) contain primary empirical data, (5) the users of social media are patients, (6) the effects of patients using social media are clearly stated, (7) satisfy established quality criteria.

resultsInitially, a total of 1,743 articles were identified from which 22 were included in the study. From these articles six categories of patients' use of social media were identified, namely: emotional, information, esteem, network support, social comparison and emotional expression. The types of use were found to lead to seven identified types of effects on patients, namely improved self-management and control, enhanced psychological well-being, and enhanced subjective well-being, diminished subjective well-being, addiction to social media, loss of privacy, and being targeted for promotion. Social media use by patients was found to affect the healthcare professional and patient relationship, by leading to more equal communication between the patient and healthcare professional, increased switching of doctors, harmonious relationships, and suboptimal interaction between the patient and healthcare professional.

conclusionsOur review provides insights into the emerging utilization of social media in healthcare. In particular, it identifies types of use by patients as well as the effects of such use, which may differ between patients and doctors. Accordingly, our results framework and propositions can serve to guide future research, and they also have practical implications for healthcare providers and policy makers.

Indexed as

Consumer Health InformationProfessional-Patient RelationsSocial MediaFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMaleSelf CareHealthHealthcare professionalsPatientsSocial media

Identifiers

PMID27562728
PMCPMC5000484
OpenAlexW2512433998

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.