Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37192601›Full record

ReviewQualitative health research2023

A Mapping Review of Netnography in Nursing.

Martin Salzmann-Erikson, Henrik Eriksson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Qualitative health research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Digital Narratives: The Impact of InstagramChildren (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

2 authors.

Martin Salzmann-EriksonFaculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Caring Sciences, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-2610-8998
Henrik ErikssonDepartment of Health Sciences, University West, Trollhättan, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

People use the Web to seek health-related information and to discuss health issues with peers. Netnography, a qualitative research methodology, has gained the attention of researchers interested in people's health and health issues. However, no previous reviews have accounted for how netnography is used in nursing research. The purpose of this mapping review was to generate a map of netnographic research in nursing. The search was conducted in PubMed, Academic Search Elite, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Medline, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science. Data were extracted from 53 original articles. The results show an increasing trend in published netnographies over time; 34% of the total sample was published in 2021. Of the total, 28% originated from Sweden, and 81% had used a covert approach. In studies in which the researchers used more participatory designs, the time spent on online forums ranged between 4 weeks and 20 months. Informed consent is found to be an issue in netnographic studies. We discuss the fact that nursing researchers have used netnography to address a wide range of research topics of concern and interest, from self-care support in an online forum for older adults to nursing students' perspectives on effective pedagogy. In line with the digital transformation in society in general, we discuss the fact that netnography as a research methodology offers great opportunities for nurse researchers to monitor new spaces and places that presuppose online methodological knowledge.

Indexed as

Nursing ResearchStudents, NursingAgedHumansSwedennetnographynursingqualitative researchresearch ethicsreview

Identifiers

PMID37192601
PMCPMC10387728

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.