ArticleJournal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association2024
Analyzing Burn-Related Content on Social Media Platforms: A Study of Creator Types, Content Focus, and Engagement Metrics.
Article in Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Social media offers a readily available, cost-effective way for medical experts to disseminate knowledge and shape public health outcomes but also allows for the spread of misinformation. This study aims to analyze burn-related material on social media by creator, content type, and engagement. Facebook, TikTok, and X (formerly Twitter) were queried with the following search terms: "burn," "burn injury," "burn recovery," and "burn treatment." Identified accounts were then manually screened for relevance. Year of creation and engagement metrics were collected. Accounts were categorized by content and creator type. Data were reported using descriptive statistics and visualized graphically to explore trends. Our search yielded 434 profiles, 234 of which met the inclusion criteria. TikTok had the most engagement at a median of 43,500 followers per account, with 38.3% of accounts focusing on individual experiences of burn survivors primarily on personal accounts (48.3%). In contrast, content on Facebook was related to the promotion of medical services (36.9%), whereas the most represented creator type was medical centers (33.6%). Nonprofits made up 40.4% of accounts on Twitter/X and more than a third of the content focused on patient advocacy, support, or burn prevention (36.5%). Important topics like burn education, prevention, and social support are lacking on major social media platforms. Engagement from burn care organizations and burn experts on social media is necessary. The findings of this study may guide advocates in the burn community on where and how to disseminate information on social media.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.