ArticleJMIR public health and surveillance2019
Communicating Science in the Digital and Social Media Ecosystem: Scoping Review and Typology of Strategies Used by Health Scientists.
Article in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Digital science communication for sustainability literacy: A scoping review.Open research Europe · 2025Pooled it
- The knowledge of movement experts about stretching effects: Does the science reach practice?PloS one · 2024Article
- Field based research in the era of the pandemic in resource limited settings: challenges and lessons for the future.Frontiers in public health · 2024Review
- An Active Model of Research Translation for the General Public: Content Analysis of a YouTube-Based Health Podcast.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Spreading of misinformation on mass media and digital platforms regarding vaccines. A systematic scoping review on stakeholders, policymakers, and sentiments/behavior of Italian consumers.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2023Article
- Dear Pandemic: A topic modeling analysis of COVID-19 information needs among readers of an online science communication campaign.PloS one · 2023Article
- Bursting out of our bubble: using creative techniques to communicate within the systematic review process and beyond.Systematic reviews · 2022Article
- Going Viral: Researching Safely on Social Media.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- A Social Media Campaign (#datasaveslives) to Promote the Benefits of Using Health Data for Research Purposes: Mixed Methods Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe public's understanding of science can be influential in a wide range of areas related to public health, including policy making and self-care. Through the digital and social media ecosystem, health scientists play a growing role in public science communication (SC).
objectiveThis review aimed to (1) synthesize the literature on SC initiated by health scientists targeting the public in the digital and social media ecosystem and (2) describe the SC strategies and communication channels used.
methodsThis scoping review was based on the Joanna Briggs Institute Methodological Framework. A systematic search was performed in 6 databases (January 2000 to April 2018). Title and abstract screening, full-text review, data charting, and critical appraisal were performed independently by two review authors. Data regarding included studies and communication channels were synthesized descriptively. A typology of SC strategies was developed using a qualitative and inductive method of data synthesis.
resultsAmong 960 unique publications identified, 18 met inclusion criteria. A third of publications scored good quality (6/18, 33%), half scored moderate quality (9/18, 50%), and less than a fifth scored low quality (3/18, 16%). Overall, 75 SC strategies used by health scientists were identified. These were grouped into 9 types: content, credibility, engagement, intention, linguistics, planification, presentation, social exchange, and statistics. A total of 5 types of communication channels were identified: social networking platforms (eg, Twitter), content-sharing platforms (eg, YouTube), digital research communities (eg, ResearchGate), personal blogs and websites (eg, WordPress), and social news aggregation and discussion platforms (eg, Reddit).
conclusionsEvidence suggests that multiple types of SC strategies and communication channels are used by health scientists concurrently. Few empirical studies have been conducted on SC by health scientists in the digital and social media ecosystem. Future studies should examine the appropriateness and effectiveness of SC strategies for improving public health-related outcomes and identify the barriers, facilitators, and ethical considerations inherent to the involvement of health scientists in the digital and social media ecosystem.
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.