ArticleExploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy2026
Behind the counter, behind the discourse: The paradox of pharmacist influence in Arabic women's health online.
Article in Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Social media is now a major arena for Arabic women's health discourse in the MENA region, yet it is unclear how pharmacists' expertise influences both the accuracy and visibility of information across platforms. Objective: To compare pharmacists' visibility and accuracy with other author groups and to assess how platform, sentiment, and follower dynamics shape the gap between information quality and reach. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional content analysis of 682 public Arabic-language posts on women's self-medication and over-the-counter care from Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, Threads, Facebook, and X (January 2024-March 2025). Two independent coders rated accuracy on a four-point scale and classified sentiment (κ > 0.80). Engagement was summarized using the Virtual Presence Index (VPI), an equally weighted composite of standardized likes, comments, and shares/reposts. Proportional-odds ordinal logistic regression modeled predictors of higher accuracy; a non-circular binary logistic model examined determinants of high engagement (above-median VPI) with platform, author type, sentiment, topic, and linear plus quadratic log₁₀(follower count) as covariates. Results: Pharmacists authored 49.6 % of posts; physicians and other health professionals contributed 37.1 %. Overall, 71.8 % of posts were rated accurate, rising to 94.1 % for pharmacist-authored content. Platform was the strongest predictor of accuracy: compared with Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, Threads, and X had higher odds of higher accuracy, with TikTok showing a smaller but significant advantage. Pharmacist authorship independently predicted higher accuracy, whereas follower count did not. For engagement, platform dominated. With X as the reference, all other platforms had lower adjusted odds of high VPI. Positive sentiment increased the likelihood of high VPI, and follower count showed a U-shaped association, with mid-sized accounts disadvantaged. After adjustment, author-type differences in visibility were modest: pharmacists' posts were more accurate but did not enjoy consistent visibility advantages, especially on highly visual, fast-scroll platforms. Conclusion: In Arabic women's health discourse online, who speaks matters less for reach than where and how they speak. Pharmacists deliver the most accurate content but often remain "invisible experts" in environments that reward aesthetics and emotion over credentials. The VPI helps quantify this quality-reach gap and can guide platform-specific, culturally attuned strategies to make evidence-based voices more discoverable.
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.