Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37471119›Full record

ArticleJMIR pediatrics and parenting2023

Social Media Interventions for Nutrition Education Among Adolescents: Scoping Review.

Yalinie Kulandaivelu, Jill Hamilton, Ananya Banerjee, Anatoliy Gruzd, Barkha Patel, Jennifer Stinson

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR pediatrics and parenting, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.4field-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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Yalinie KulandaiveluChild Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3263-5495
Jill HamiltonCentre for Healthy Active Kids, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1958-2800
Ananya BanerjeeDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0241-929X
Anatoliy GruzdInformation Technology Management, Toronto Metropolitan University, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2366-5163
Barkha PatelCentre for Healthy Active Kids, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3966-3226
Jennifer StinsonChild Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9969-8052
Hospital for Sick Children · CAToronto Metropolitan University · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdolescence is a critical period for reinforcing healthy dietary behaviors and supporting the development of cooking skills. Social media may be an avenue for supporting these behaviors, as it is popular among adolescents and can improve access to nutrition education interventions. This study sought to understand the optimal implementation of effective social media-based nutrition education interventions to inform the implementation of future social media-based nutrition education interventions.

objectiveA scoping review of the characteristics, feasibility, effectiveness, and factors influencing social media-based nutrition education interventions for adolescents was conducted.

methodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PsycINFO databases using a predefined search strategy. Primary research articles were independently screened and included if they involved adolescent populations (10-18 years old) and delivered nutrition education through social media. The information on intervention characteristics, feasibility, effectiveness, and factors influencing social media-based nutrition education interventions was extracted.

resultsA total of 28 publications out of 20,557 met the eligibility criteria. Twenty-five nutrition interventions were examined by 28 studies. Fourteen interventions used homegrown social media platforms, 8 used Facebook, and 2 used Instagram. Feasibility outcomes were infrequently reported, and the cost of intervention delivery was not reported. Engagement with interventions was variable; high engagement was not required to elicit significant improvements in dietary behaviors. Tailoring interventions, offering practical content, meaningful peer support, and involving families and communities facilitated successful interventions. Strategies to address engagement and technical issues were varied.

conclusionsEmerging evidence demonstrates that social media interventions for adolescent nutrition are acceptable and improve nutrition outcomes. Future interventions should strengthen peer support components and tailor delivery to specific populations. Further research should examine engagement, adherence, and the impact of interventions on behavioral and physical outcomes. This review is the first to examine the use of social media as the primary medium for nutrition education for adolescent populations. The analysis used in this review argues the importance of peer support in social media-based nutrition interventions and the need for user-centered design of the interventions.

Indexed as

adolescentsdigital health interventionfood literacyhealth literacynutritionpeer educationpeer supportsocial media

Identifiers

PMID37471119
PMCPMC10401194
OpenAlexW4384790476

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.