Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37067874›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2023

When People With Chronic Conditions Turn to Peers on Social Media to Obtain and Share Information: Systematic Review of the Implications for Relationships With Health Care Professionals.

Emilie Mølholm Kjærulff, Tue Helms Andersen, Natasja Kingod, Mette Andersen Nexø

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
5.8field-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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Reddit posts reveal how natural environments affect social anxiety in young people.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Emilie Mølholm KjærulffDepartment of Education, Copenhagen University Hospital, Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, Herlev, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-1426-0765
Tue Helms AndersenDepartment of Education, Copenhagen University Hospital, Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, Herlev, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-2108-674X
Natasja KingodDepartment of Education, Copenhagen University Hospital, Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, Herlev, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-6797-9917
Mette Andersen NexøDepartment of Education, Copenhagen University Hospital, Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, Herlev, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-3263-293X
Steno Diabetes Centers · DKUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeople living with chronic conditions such as diabetes turn to peers on social media to obtain and share information. Although social media use has grown dramatically in the past decade, little is known about its implications for the relationships between people with chronic conditions and health care professionals (HCPs).

objectiveWe aimed to systematically review the content and quality of studies examining what the retrieval and sharing of information by people with chronic conditions on social media implies for their relationships with HCPs.

methodsWe conducted a search of studies in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), and CINAHL (EBSCO). Eligible studies were primary studies; examined social media use; included adults with any type of diabetes, cardiovascular diseases that are closely linked with diabetes, obesity, hypertension, or dyslipidemia; and reported on the implications for people with chronic conditions-HCP relationships when people with chronic conditions access and share information on social media. We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool version 2018 to assess the quality of the studies, and the included studies were narratively synthesized.

resultsOf the 3111 screened studies, 17 (0.55%) were included. Most studies (13/17, 76%) were of low quality. The narrative synthesis identified implications for people with chronic conditions-HCP relationships when people with chronic conditions access and share information on social media, divided into 3 main categories with 7 subcategories. These categories of implications address how the peer interactions of people with chronic conditions on social media can influence their communication with HCPs, how people with chronic conditions discuss advice and medical information from HCPs on social media, and how relationships with HCPs are discussed by people with chronic conditions on social media. The implications are illustrated collectively in a conceptual model.

conclusionsMore evidence is needed to draw conclusions, but the findings indicate that the peer interactions of people with chronic conditions on social media are implicated in the ways in which people with chronic conditions equip themselves for clinical consultations, evaluate the information and advice provided by HCPs, and manage their relationships with HCPs. Future populations with chronic conditions will be raised in a digital world, and social media will likely remain a strategy for obtaining support and information. However, the generally low quality of the studies included in this review points to the relatively immature state of research exploring social media and its implications for people with chronic conditions-HCP relationships. Better study designs and methods for conducting research on social media are needed to generate robust evidence.

Indexed as

Social MediaAdultChronic DiseaseCommunicationHealth PersonnelHumanschronic diseasesdiabeteshealth informationinformation-seeking behaviorinternetpatient-physician relationshipretrievalsharingsocial mediasystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37067874
PMCPMC10152331
OpenAlexW4320069637

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.