SynthesisMedicine, health care, and philosophy2025
The use of social media in social care: a systematic review of the argument-based ethics literature.
Synthesis in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Digital technologies, especially social media, have become everyday tools. In care settings, the use of social media is considered a possible guarantee to maintain quality practices. This trend is specifically relevant for social care, including social work, psychology, psychiatry, rehabilitation etc., due to their communicative nature. Nevertheless, this use is joined by ethical vulnerabilities. To get insight into these, a systematic review of relevant normative-ethical literature was carried out following a 4-step methodology: developing ethical-conceptual questions; a literature search in four electronic databases (CINAHL, Philosopher's Index, Web of Science, ProQuest Database Psychology); assessment and inclusion of articles based on predefined criteria; extracting, analysing, and synthesizing reported data. Thirty-three articles were included, showing that current ethical debates are governed by nine themes: Benefits of social media; Relations, limits, and boundaries; Searches; Privacy, confidentiality, and trust; Documentation and records; Competency and client suitability; Consultation and referral; Informed consent; and Identity and image. We found that most ethical literature on social media use in social care settings adheres to the principles of biomedical ethics (respect for autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, justice) and to an ethics of carefulness, i.e. an ethics which takes social media for granted and considers its impact only on the particular therapeutic relationship. It loses sight of those ethical issues which occur on organizational, societal, and global levels. A full account of the ethics of social media use can only be given by considering these different levels and by informing the ethics of carefulness by an ethics of desirability.
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.