Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28588006›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2017

Attitudes Toward the Ethics of Research Using Social Media: A Systematic Review.

Su Golder, Shahd Ahmed, Gill Norman, Andrew Booth

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

65 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

5 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.

Su GolderDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8987-5211
Shahd AhmedDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0615-7450
Gill NormanSchool of Nursing, Midwifery & Social Work, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3972-5733
Andrew BoothSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4808-3880

Funding

Department of Health PDF-2014-07-041
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough primarily used for social networking and often used for social support and dissemination, data on social media platforms are increasingly being used to facilitate research. However, the ethical challenges in conducting social media research remain of great concern. Although much debated in the literature, it is the views of the public that are most pertinent to inform future practice.

objectiveThe aim of our study was to ascertain attitudes on the ethical considerations of using social media as a data source for research as expressed by social media users and researchers.

methodsA systematic review was conducted, wherein 16 databases and 2 Internet search engines were searched in addition to handsearching, reference checking, citation searching, and contacting authors and experts. Studies that conducted any qualitative methods to collect data on attitudes on the ethical implications of research using social media were included. Quality assessment was conducted using the quality of reporting tool (QuaRT) and findings analyzed using inductive thematic synthesis.

resultsIn total, 17 studies met the inclusion criteria. Attitudes varied from overly positive with people expressing the views about the essential nature of such research for the public good, to very concerned with views that social media research should not happen. Underlying reasons for this variation related to issues such as the purpose and quality of the research, the researcher affiliation, and the potential harms. The methods used to conduct the research were also important. Many respondents were positive about social media research while adding caveats such as the need for informed consent or use restricted to public platforms only.

conclusionsMany conflicting issues contribute to the complexity of good ethical practice in social media research. However, this should not deter researchers from conducting social media research. Each Internet research project requires an individual assessment of its own ethical issues. Guidelines on ethical conduct should be based on current evidence and standardized to avoid discrepancies between, and duplication across, different institutions, taking into consideration different jurisdictions.

Indexed as

AttitudeHumansInternetResearch DesignSocial MediaSocial Networkingethicsqualitative researchresearch designreview literature as topicsocial media

Identifiers

PMID28588006
PMCPMC5478799

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.