Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33685515›Full record

ArticleAllergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology2021

Content analysis of promotional material for asthma-related products and therapies on Instagram.

Brent Heineman, Marcella Jewell, Michael Moran, Kolbi Bradley, Kerry A Spitzer, Peter K Lindenauer

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

6 authors.

Brent HeinemanInstitute for Healthcare Delivery and Population Science, University of Massachusetts Medical School-Baystate, 3601 Main St, 3rd Floor, Springfield, MA, 01107, USA.
Marcella JewellInstitute for Healthcare Delivery and Population Science, University of Massachusetts Medical School-Baystate, 3601 Main St, 3rd Floor, Springfield, MA, 01107, USA.
Michael MoranInstitute for Healthcare Delivery and Population Science, University of Massachusetts Medical School-Baystate, 3601 Main St, 3rd Floor, Springfield, MA, 01107, USA.
Kolbi BradleyInstitute for Healthcare Delivery and Population Science, University of Massachusetts Medical School-Baystate, 3601 Main St, 3rd Floor, Springfield, MA, 01107, USA.
Kerry A SpitzerInstitute for Healthcare Delivery and Population Science, University of Massachusetts Medical School-Baystate, 3601 Main St, 3rd Floor, Springfield, MA, 01107, USA. Kerry.Spitzer@baystatehealth.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8371-0312
Peter K LindenauerInstitute for Healthcare Delivery and Population Science, University of Massachusetts Medical School-Baystate, 3601 Main St, 3rd Floor, Springfield, MA, 01107, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIncreasingly, social media is a source for information about health and disease self-management. We conducted a content analysis of promotional asthma-related posts on Instagram to understand whether promoted products and services are consistent with the recommendations found in the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) 2019 guidelines.

methodsWe collected every Instagram post incorporating a common, asthma-related hashtag between September 29, 2019 and October 5, 2019. Of these 2936 collected posts, we analyzed a random sample of 266, of which, 211 met our inclusion criteria. Using an inductive, qualitative approach, we categorized the promotional posts and compared each post's content with the recommendations contained in the 2019 GINA guidelines. Posts were categorized as "consistent with GINA" if the content was supported by the GINA guidelines. Posts that promoted content that was not recommended by or was unrelated to the guidelines were categorized as "not supported by GINA".

resultsOf 211 posts, 89 (42.2%) were promotional in nature. Of these, a total of 29 (32.6%) were categorized as being consistent with GINA guidelines. The majority of posts were not supported by the guidelines. Forty-one (46.1%) posts promoted content that was not recommended by the current guidelines. Nineteen (21.3%) posts promoted content that was unrelated to the guidelines. The majority of unsupported content promoted non-pharmacological therapies (n = 39, 65%) to manage asthma, such as black seed oil, salt-room therapy, or cupping.

conclusionsThe majority of Instagram posts in our sample promoted products or services that were not supported by GINA guidelines. These findings suggest a need for providers to discuss online health information with patients and highlight an opportunity for providers and social media companies to promote evidence-based asthma treatments and self-management advice online.

Indexed as

AsthmaClinical guidelinesInternetMisinformationQualitative methodsSocial media

Identifiers

PMID33685515
PMCPMC7938386

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.