ArticleOnline journal of public health informatics2018
Effective uses of social media in public health and medicine: a systematic review of systematic reviews.
Article in Online journal of public health informatics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 120 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
120 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Examining the Effectiveness of Social Media for the Dissemination of Research Evidence for Health and Social Care Practitioners: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- Social media-based interventions for adults with obesity and overweight: a meta-analysis and meta-regression.International journal of obesity (2005) · 2023Pooled it
- The Empowering Role of Web-Based Help Seeking on Depressive Symptoms: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Pooled it
- Medical educators' perspectives on the barriers and enablers of teaching public health in the undergraduate medical schools: a systematic review.Global health action · 2022Pooled it
- Evaluating the Effectiveness of Internet-Based Communication for Public Health: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Pooled it
- The relationship between fears of cancer recurrence and patient age: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2020Pooled it
- Patients' Use of Social Media for Diabetes Self-Care: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Pooled it
- Trial
- Assessing the content and quality of gastrointestinal endoscopy videos on TikTok, Bilibili, and Kwai: a cross - sectional study.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Professional Instagram Use by Ontario Plastic Surgeons: Content Patterns and Engagement by Practice Setting.Plastic surgery (Oakville, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Article
- Evaluating the efficacy of digital media platforms in disseminating public health information: A global review with implications for South Africa.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2026Review
- A Social Media Campaign to Promote COVID-19 Vaccination: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2026Article
- Negotiating privacy and responsibility in digital public health: a qualitative study of the social and ethical implications of peer-to-peer health data sharing.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- The effect of digital health intervention in promoting healthy behavior: A systematic scoping review on strategies to prevent non-communicable diseases.Dialogues in health · 2025Review
- Article
- Beyond problematic social media use and the brain: A public health and policy perspective.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2025Review
- Smartphone addiction and its association with accident risk in Iranian adults.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Perceptions of Executive Decision Makers on Using Social Media in Effective Health Communication: Qualitative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Opportunities and challenges of social media for oral health literacy improvement: a qualitative investigation based on Iranian dentists' perspectives.BMC health services research · 2025Article
60 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionResearch examining the effective uses of social media (SM) in public health and medicine, especially in the form of systematic reviews (SRs), has grown considerably in the past decade. To our knowledge, no comprehensive synthesis of this literature has been conducted to date. AIMS AND
methodsTo conduct a systematic review of systematic reviews of the benefits and harms ("effects") of SM tools and platforms (such as Twitter and Facebook) in public health and medicine. To perform a synthesis of this literature and create a 'living systematic review'.
resultsForty-two (42) high-quality SRs were examined. Overall, evidence of SM's effectiveness in public health and medicine was judged to be minimal. However, qualitative benefits for patients are seen in improved psychosocial support and psychological functioning. Health professionals benefited from better peer-to-peer communication and lifelong learning. Harms on all groups include the impact of SM on mental health, privacy, confidentiality and information reliability.
conclusionsA range of negatives and positives of SM in public health and medicine are seen in the SR literature but definitive conclusions cannot be made at this time. Clearly better research designs are needed to measure the effectiveness of social technologies. For ongoing updates, see the wiki "Effective uses of social media in health: a living systematic review of systematic reviews". http://hlwiki.slais.ubc.ca/index.php/Effective_uses_of_social_media_in_healthcare:_a_living_systematic_review_of_reviews.
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.