Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29030326›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2017

Consumer Health-Related Activities on Social Media: Exploratory Study.

Arcelio Benetoli, Timothy F Chen, Parisa Aslani

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
–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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 'How to Botox' on YouTube: Influence and Beauty Procedures in the Era of User-Generated Content.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

3 authors.

Arcelio BenetoliFaculty of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2349-6040
Timothy F ChenFaculty of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4189-8403
Parisa AslaniFaculty of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7976-8236

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough a number of studies have investigated how consumers use social media for health-related purposes, there is a paucity of studies in the Australian context.

objectiveThis study aimed to explore how Australian consumers used social media for health-related purposes, specifically how they identified social media platforms, which were used, and which health-related activities commonly took place.

methodsA total of 5 focus groups (n=36 participants), each lasting 60 to 90 minutes, were conducted in the Sydney metropolitan area. The group discussions were audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were coded line-by-line and thematically analyzed.

resultsParticipants used general search engines to locate health-related social media platforms. They accessed a wide range of social media on a daily basis, using several electronic devices (in particular, mobile phones). Although privacy was a concern, it did not prevent consumers from fully engaging in social media for health-related purposes. Blogs were used to learn from other people's experiences with the same condition. Facebook allowed consumers to follow health-related pages and to participate in disease-specific group discussions. Wikipedia was used for factual information about diseases and treatments. YouTube was accessed to learn about medical procedures such as surgery. No participant reported editing or contributing to Wikipedia or posting YouTube videos related to health topics. Twitter was rarely used for health-related purposes. Social media allowed consumers to obtain and provide disease and treatment-related information and social and emotional support for those living with the same condition. Most considered their participation as observational, but some also contributed (eg, responded to people's questions).

conclusionsParticipants used a wide range of social media for health-related purposes. Medical information exchange (eg, disease and treatment) and social and emotional support were the cornerstones of their online activities. Social media appears to be used as a key tool to support disease self-management.

Indexed as

Consumer Health InformaticsFocus GroupsHumansSocial MediaSocial NetworkingconsumersFacebookfocus groupshealthpatientssocial mediasocial networking sitesTwitterWikipediaYouTube

Identifiers

PMID29030326
PMCPMC5660293

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.