Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38758590›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024

Reporting of Ethical Considerations in Qualitative Research Utilizing Social Media Data on Public Health Care: Scoping Review.

Yujie Zhang, Jiaqi Fu, Jie Lai, Shisi Deng, Zihan Guo, Chuhan Zhong, Jianyao Tang, Wenqiong Cao, Yanni Wu

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  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

9 authors.

Yujie Zhang *Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0009-0009-9305-2718
Jiaqi Fu *Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0001-5353-6835
Jie Lai *Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0003-4919-8196
Shisi DengNanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0009-0003-1454-7592
Zihan GuoNanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0009-0005-3375-1075
Chuhan ZhongNanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0009-0006-0374-3573
Jianyao TangNanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0009-0006-9059-8203
Wenqiong CaoNanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0009-0004-3231-5442
Yanni WuNanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0003-1938-2785

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe internet community has become a significant source for researchers to conduct qualitative studies analyzing users' views, attitudes, and experiences about public health. However, few studies have assessed the ethical issues in qualitative research using social media data.

objectiveThis study aims to review the reportage of ethical considerations in qualitative research utilizing social media data on public health care.

methodsWe performed a scoping review of studies mining text from internet communities and published in peer-reviewed journals from 2010 to May 31, 2023. These studies, limited to the English language, were retrieved to evaluate the rates of reporting ethical approval, informed consent, and privacy issues. We searched 5 databases, that is, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane, and Embase. Gray literature was supplemented from Google Scholar and OpenGrey websites. Studies using qualitative methods mining text from the internet community focusing on health care topics were deemed eligible. Data extraction was performed using a standardized data extraction spreadsheet. Findings were reported using PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines.

resultsAfter 4674 titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened, 108 studies on mining text from the internet community were included. Nearly half of the studies were published in the United States, with more studies from 2019 to 2022. Only 59.3% (64/108) of the studies sought ethical approval, 45.3% (49/108) mentioned informed consent, and only 12.9% (14/108) of the studies explicitly obtained informed consent. Approximately 86% (12/14) of the studies that reported informed consent obtained digital informed consent from participants/administrators, while 14% (2/14) did not describe the method used to obtain informed consent. Notably, 70.3% (76/108) of the studies contained users' written content or posts: 68% (52/76) contained verbatim quotes, while 32% (24/76) paraphrased the quotes to prevent traceability. However, 16% (4/24) of the studies that paraphrased the quotes did not report the paraphrasing methods. Moreover, 18.5% (20/108) of the studies used aggregated data analysis to protect users' privacy. Furthermore, the rates of reporting ethical approval were different between different countries (P=.02) and between papers that contained users' written content (both direct and paraphrased quotes) and papers that did not contain users' written content (P<.001).

conclusionsOur scoping review demonstrates that the reporting of ethical considerations is widely neglected in qualitative research studies using social media data; such studies should be more cautious in citing user quotes to maintain user privacy. Further, our review reveals the need for detailed information on the precautions of obtaining informed consent and paraphrasing to reduce the potential bias. A national consensus of ethical considerations such as ethical approval, informed consent, and privacy issues is needed for qualitative research of health care using social media data of internet communities.

Indexed as

Qualitative ResearchSocial MediaHumansInformed ConsentPublic Healthethics approvalinformed consentinternet communityprivacyqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID38758590
PMCPMC11143395

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.