Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33591287›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021

Peer-to-Peer Sharing of Social Media Messages on Sexual Health in a School-Based Intervention: Opportunities and Challenges Identified in the STASH Feasibility Trial.

Maija Hirvonen, Carrie Purcell, Lawrie Elliott, Julia V Bailey, Sharon Anne Simpson, Lisa McDaid, Laurence Moore, Kirstin Rebecca Mitchell, STASH Study Team

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Maija HirvonenDepartment of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (see Acknowledgments), London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9693-5588
Carrie PurcellMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2651-9201
Lawrie ElliottDepartment of Nursing and Community Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7727-231X
Julia V BaileyDepartment of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5001-0122
Sharon Anne SimpsonMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6219-1768
Lisa McDaidMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7711-8723
Laurence MooreMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2182-823X
Kirstin Rebecca MitchellMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4409-6601
STASH Study Team *see Acknowlegments, .
MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit · GBGlasgow Caledonian University · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Glasgow · GB

Funding

Chief Scientist Office SPHSU11Chief Scientist Office SPHSU14Chief Scientist Office SPHSU16Chief Scientist Office SPHSU18Department of Health 10/131/01Department of Health 11/3009/04Medical Research Council G0701749Medical Research Council MC-PC-13027Medical Research Council MC_PC_13027Medical Research Council MC_UU_00022/1Medical Research Council MC_UU_00022/3Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/11Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/14
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a strong interest in the use of social media to spread positive sexual health messages through social networks of young people. However, research suggests that this potential may be limited by a reluctance to be visibly associated with sexual health content on the web or social media and by the lack of trust in the veracity of peer sources.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate opportunities and challenges of using social media to facilitate peer-to-peer sharing of sexual health messages within the context of STASH (Sexually Transmitted Infections and Sexual Health), a secondary school-based and peer-led sexual health intervention.

methodsFollowing training, and as a part of their role, student-nominated peer supporters (aged 14-16 years) invited school friends to trainer-monitored, private Facebook groups. Peer supporters posted curated educational sex and relationship content within these groups. Data came from a feasibility study of the STASH intervention in 6 UK schools. To understand student experiences of the social media component, we used data from 11 semistructured paired and group interviews with peer supporters and their friends (collectively termed students; n=42, aged 14-16 years), a web-based postintervention questionnaire administered to peer supporters (n=88), and baseline and follow-up questionnaires administered to students in the intervention year group (n=680 and n=603, respectively). We carried out a thematic analysis of qualitative data and a descriptive analysis of quantitative data.

resultsMessage sharing by peer supporters was hindered by variable engagement with Facebook. The trainer-monitored and private Facebook groups were acceptable to student members (peer supporters and their friends) and reassuring to peer supporters but led to engagement that ran parallel to-rather than embedded in-their routine social media use. The offline context of a school-based intervention helped legitimate and augment Facebook posts; however, even where friends were receptive to STASH messages, they did not necessarily engage visibly on social media. Preferences for content design varied; however, humor, color, and text brevity were important. Preferences for social media versus offline message sharing varied.

conclusionsInvitation-only social media groups formed around peer supporters' existing friendship networks hold potential for diffusing messages in peer-based sexual health interventions. Ideally, interactive opportunities should not be limited to single social media platforms and should run alongside offline conversations. There are tensions between offering young people autonomy to engage flexibly and authentically and the need for adult oversight of activities for information accuracy and safeguarding.

Indexed as

AdolescentFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleSchool Health ServicesSexual HealthSocial Mediaadolescentfeasibility studiespeer educationprocess evaluationschoolsex educationsexual healthsocial mediasocial networking

Identifiers

PMID33591287
PMCPMC7925155
OpenAlexW3097674044

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.