Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39696170›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2024

Helpful or harmful? Navigating the impact of social media influencers' health advice: insights from health expert content creators.

Jaroslava Kaňková, Alice Binder, Jörg Matthes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Educators, Not Influencers: Health Content Creator Perspectives on Research Recruitment Collaboration.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  7. Influence without medical expertise: a social network analysis of Mounjaro discussions on twitter (X).Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2026
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

3 authors.

Jaroslava KaňkováDepartment of Communication, University of Vienna, Währinger Strasse 29, Vienna, 1090, Austria. jaroslava.kankova@univie.ac.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-2364-844X
Alice BinderDepartment of Communication, University of Vienna, Währinger Strasse 29, Vienna, 1090, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3266-8614
Jörg MatthesDepartment of Communication, University of Vienna, Währinger Strasse 29, Vienna, 1090, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9408-955X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith the growing role of social media influencers (SMIs) in providing health advice, concerns arise regarding the usefulness and reliability of online health information. This exploratory research focuses on health expert content creators (HECCs), who offer a unique perspective due to their combined medical knowledge and social media expertise.

methodsWe conducted semi-structured in-depth qualitative interviews with HECCs to explore their views on SMI-driven health communication, their motivations for participating on social media, and the strategies they employ to counteract misleading health messages on the platforms. The study employed thematic qualitative text analysis to identify key themes and patterns.

resultsHECCs highlighted the complex role of SMIs in public health, acknowledging their potential to promote positive health behaviors while also noting the risks associated with the spread of inaccurate or oversimplified health messages. The findings emphasize the urgent need to broaden health communication research to address not only misinformation but also overgeneralized health messaging, which can be equally detrimental.

conclusionsThe findings underscore the importance of expanding health communication research to address both misinformation and overgeneralized health messaging. Practical recommendations are provided to mitigate the spread of misleading health information by SMIs, informed by the experiences and strategies of HECCs.

Indexed as

Health CommunicationQualitative ResearchSocial MediaAdultFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedHealth communicationHealth expertsQualitative interviewsSocial media influencers

Identifiers

PMID39696170
PMCPMC11657387

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.