Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41509009›Full record

ArticleExploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy2026

Behind the counter, behind the discourse: The paradox of pharmacist influence in Arabic women's health online.

Samar J Melhem, Hamzeh Almomani, Rimal Mousa, Qais Alefan, Nadia Al Mazrouei, Beisan A Mohammed, Iman Amrani, Rula M Darwish, Razan Tubeileh, Yazan AlRashadan and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

12 authors.

Samar J MelhemDepartment of Biopharmaceutics and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.
Hamzeh AlmomaniDepartment of Biopharmaceutics and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.
Rimal MousaDepartment of Biopharmaceutics and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.
Qais AlefanClinical Pharmacy Department, Faculty of Pharmacy, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan.
Nadia Al MazroueiDepartment of Pharmacy Practice and Pharmacotherapeutics, College of Pharmacy, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates.
Beisan A MohammedDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Fakeeh College for Medical Sciences, Jeddah 21461, Saudi Arabia.
Iman AmraniFaculty of Pharmacy, University of Health Sciences, Algiers, Algeria.
Rula M DarwishDepartment of Pharmaceutics and Pharmaceutical Technology, School of Pharmacy, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.
Razan TubeilehDepartment of Biopharmaceutics and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.
Yazan AlRashadanDepartment of Biopharmaceutics and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.
Nailya BulatovaDepartment of Biopharmaceutics and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.
Ibrahim AlabbadiDepartment of Biopharmaceutics and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Content accuracyCross-platform analysisDigital health communicationEngagementMENAPharmacistsSelf-medicationSocial mediaVirtual Presence IndexWomen's health

Identifiers

PMID41509009
PMCPMC12774756

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.