Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38838330›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2024

Examining the Effectiveness of Social Media for the Dissemination of Research Evidence for Health and Social Care Practitioners: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Sarah Roberts-Lewis, Helen Baxter, Gill Mein, Sophia Quirke-McFarlane, Fiona J Leggat, Hannah Garner, Martha Powell, Sarah White, Lindsay Bearne

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Dissemination planning in exercise oncology trials-a systematic review of trial protocols.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Web-Based Physiotherapy Resources for Bronchiectasis: Evaluation of Content, Quality, and Implementation Evidence.Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Strategies to promote the dissemination of psychosocial digital health resources for those affected by cancer: scoping review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  10. Network-Based Asynchronous Research Training in Breast Imaging: A Multinational Pre-Post Evaluation for Cancer Education.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Sarah Roberts-LewisPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5579-2701
Helen BaxterBristol Population Health Science Institute, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3320-2915
Gill MeinFaculty of Health, Social Care and Education, St George's University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0421-8811
Sophia Quirke-McFarlaneSchool of Psychology, University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6700-3535
Fiona J LeggatPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6754-7225
Hannah GarnerDepartment of Physiotherapy, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7843-0770
Martha PowellNational Institute of Health and Care Research, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2356-2973
Sarah WhitePopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2468-6193
Lindsay BearnePopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2190-8590

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocial media use has potential to facilitate the rapid dissemination of research evidence to busy health and social care practitioners.

objectiveThis study aims to quantitatively synthesize evidence of the between- and within-group effectiveness of social media for dissemination of research evidence to health and social care practitioners. It also compared effectiveness between different social media platforms, formats, and strategies.

methodsWe searched electronic databases for articles in English that were published between January 1, 2010, and January 10, 2023, and that evaluated social media interventions for disseminating research evidence to qualified, postregistration health and social care practitioners in measures of reach, engagement, direct dissemination, or impact. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were carried out by at least 2 independent reviewers. Meta-analyses of standardized pooled effects were carried out for between- and within-group effectiveness of social media and comparisons between platforms, formats, and strategies. Certainty of evidence for outcomes was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) framework.

resultsIn total, 50 mixed-quality articles that were heterogeneous in design and outcome were included (n=9, 18% were randomized controlled trials [RCTs]). Reach (measured in number of practitioners, impressions, or post views) was reported in 26 studies. Engagement (measured in likes or post interactions) was evaluated in 21 studies. Direct dissemination (measured in link clicks, article views, downloads, or altmetric attention score) was analyzed in 23 studies (8 RCTs). Impact (measured in citations or measures of thinking and practice) was reported in 13 studies. Included studies almost universally indicated effects in favor of social media interventions, although effect sizes varied. Cumulative evidence indicated moderate certainty of large and moderate between-group effects of social media interventions on direct dissemination (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.88; P=.02) and impact (SMD 0.76; P<.001). After social media interventions, cumulative evidence showed moderate certainty of large within-group effects on reach (SMD 1.99; P<.001), engagement (SMD 3.74; P<.001), and direct dissemination (SMD 0.82; P=.004) and low certainty of a small within-group effect on impacting thinking or practice (SMD 0.45; P=.02). There was also evidence for the effectiveness of using multiple social media platforms (including Twitter, subsequently rebranded X; and Facebook), images (particularly infographics), and intensive social media strategies with frequent, daily posts and involving influential others. No included studies tested the dissemination of research evidence to social care practitioners.

conclusionsSocial media was effective for disseminating research evidence to health care practitioners. More intense social media campaigns using specific platforms, formats, and strategies may be more effective than less intense interventions. Implications include recommendations for effective dissemination of research evidence to health care practitioners and further RCTs in this field, particularly investigating the dissemination of social care research.

trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42022378793; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=378793. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/45684.

Indexed as

Information DisseminationSocial MediaHealth PersonnelHumansdisseminationeffectivenesshealth caremeta-analysispractitionersrandomized controlled trialRCTresearch evidencesocial caresocial mediasystematic review

Identifiers

PMID38838330
PMCPMC11187521

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.