ArticleF1000Research2025
Community perspectives on drug promotion on social media during the COVID-19 pandemic in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.
Article in F1000Research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, social media and web-based platforms were widely used to promote medicinal substances. To assess community perspectives on drug promotions on social media, we conducted qualitative research using three workshops. The workshops aimed to highlight the public understanding of drug advertising focusing on community perceptions of social media drug promotions, their risks and benefits. Discussions were conducted on the importance of adhering to national drug regulation policies and the World Health Organisation ethical criteria for promotion, advertisement, and publicity of medicines. Methods: Participants for the workshops were purposively sampled from local community youth groups and healthcare facilities. Two workshops included ten young adults aged 18-35, while the third workshop involved three healthcare professionals and one traditional healer. Results: The study participants' highlighted the value of honesty and trust in the drug promotions. Gaps in the ethical conduct of advertising were observed and concerns were raised about the reliability of social media information and the omission of valuable details on the drug advertisements. Conclusion: Individuals have a right to informed choices that ensure their health safety. This study has highlighted the need for transparency and accountability in pharmaceutical and complementary medicine marketing on social media. Collaboration is needed between regulatory bodies, pharmaceutical companies, healthcare providers and community members, to make sure that drug advertising upholds ethical standards and public health.
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.