Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34042593›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021

The Use of Social Media for Health Research Purposes: Scoping Review.

Charline Bour, Adrian Ahne, Susanne Schmitz, Camille Perchoux, Coralie Dessenne, Guy Fagherazzi

Abstract readScoping Review
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 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing 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

39 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Long COVID Optimal Health Programme to Enhance Mental and Physical Health: A Feasibility Randomised Controlled Trial.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Charline BourDepartment of Population Health, Luxembourg Institute of Health, Strassen, Luxembourg.ORCID 0000-0001-8537-2097
Adrian AhneInserm U1018, Center for Research in Epidemiology and Population Health (CESP), Paris Saclay University, Villejuif, France.ORCID 0000-0001-9463-9064
Susanne SchmitzCompetence Centre for Methodology and Statistics, Luxembourg Institute of Health, Strassen, Luxembourg.ORCID 0000-0003-4753-1709
Camille PerchouxLuxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research, Esch/Alzette, Luxembourg.ORCID 0000-0003-0654-3746
Coralie DessenneDepartment of Population Health, Luxembourg Institute of Health, Strassen, Luxembourg.ORCID 0000-0001-7723-0304
Guy FagherazziDepartment of Population Health, Luxembourg Institute of Health, Strassen, Luxembourg.ORCID 0000-0001-5033-5966

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs social media are increasingly used worldwide, more and more scientists are relying on them for their health-related projects. However, social media features, methodologies, and ethical issues are unclear so far because, to our knowledge, there has been no overview of this relatively young field of research.

objectiveThis scoping review aimed to provide an evidence map of the different uses of social media for health research purposes, their fields of application, and their analysis methods.

methodsWe followed the scoping review methodologies developed by Arksey and O'Malley and the Joanna Briggs Institute. After developing search strategies based on keywords (eg, social media, health research), comprehensive searches were conducted in the PubMed/MEDLINE and Web of Science databases. We limited the search strategies to documents written in English and published between January 1, 2005, and April 9, 2020. After removing duplicates, articles were screened at the title and abstract level and at the full text level by two independent reviewers. One reviewer extracted data, which were descriptively analyzed to map the available evidence.

resultsAfter screening 1237 titles and abstracts and 407 full texts, 268 unique papers were included, dating from 2009 to 2020 with an average annual growth rate of 32.71% for the 2009-2019 period. Studies mainly came from the Americas (173/268, 64.6%, including 151 from the United States). Articles used machine learning or data mining techniques (60/268) to analyze the data, discussed opportunities and limitations of the use of social media for research (59/268), assessed the feasibility of recruitment strategies (45/268), or discussed ethical issues (16/268). Communicable (eg, influenza, 40/268) and then chronic (eg, cancer, 24/268) diseases were the two main areas of interest.

conclusionsSince their early days, social media have been recognized as resources with high potential for health research purposes, yet the field is still suffering from strong heterogeneity in the methodologies used, which prevents the research from being compared and generalized. For the field to be fully recognized as a valid, complementary approach to more traditional health research study designs, there is now a need for more guidance by types of applications of social media for health research, both from a methodological and an ethical perspective. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040671.

Indexed as

Social MediaDelivery of Health CareHumansResearch DesigneHealthepidemiologyhealthinfodemiologymedicalpublic healthresearchsocial mediasocial networkingtext mining

Identifiers

PMID34042593
PMCPMC8193478

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.