Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41870429›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2026

Prescription Drug Promotion by Social Media Influencers: A Systematic Scoping Review.

Sascha Gell, Sneha Dave, Erin Willis, Elaina J Vitale, Steven Woloshin, Raffael Heiss

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

6 authors.

Sascha GellCenter for Social and Health Innovation, MCI Management Center Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Sneha DaveLisa Schwartz Foundation for Truth in Medicine, Norwich, Vermont.
Erin WillisLisa Schwartz Foundation for Truth in Medicine, Norwich, Vermont.
Elaina J VitaleLisa Schwartz Foundation for Truth in Medicine, Norwich, Vermont.
Steven WoloshinLisa Schwartz Foundation for Truth in Medicine, Norwich, Vermont.
Raffael HeissCenter for Social and Health Innovation, MCI Management Center Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Prescription drug promotion by social media influencers (hereinafter influencers) is a growing phenomenon that raises concerns about misleading advice, insufficient regulatory oversight, and ethically problematic marketing practices. Understanding the scope and risks of influencers' promotional activities is essential to protect public health. Objective: To systematically review existing research on influencer prescription drug promotion, with a focus on identifying recurring themes, regulatory gaps, and opportunities for intervention. Evidence Review: This systematic scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guideline. The search strategy was developed with a health sciences librarian and preregistered on Open Science Framework. English-language articles from peer-reviewed journals were retrieved from the Medline, Communication & Mass Media Complete, CINAHL Complete, PsycInfo, Web of Science, Business Source Complete, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases, covering research conducted in diverse online and health care contexts worldwide from 2004 to 2024. Searches used key terms related to influencers, social media, and prescription drugs, completed on March 13, 2024. Included studies underwent thematic analysis. The primary outcomes included concerns related to accuracy (misinformation), transparency (disclosure practices), and persuasiveness (personal and parasocial narratives) of prescription drug promotion by influencers. Findings: Twelve articles met inclusion criteria (8 empirical and 4 theoretical), addressing topics such as contraceptive advertising, performance-enhancing drugs, and broader pharmaceutical promotion. Methods included content analyses, interviews, and experiments. Three recurring themes emerged: (1) misinformation stemming from influencers' limited expertise in the context of audiences' low health literacy; (2) weak regulatory oversight and inconsistent disclosure practices; and (3) parasocial narratives that blur distinctions between personal testimony and paid promotion. Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic scoping review study of prescription drug promotion by influencers found that such promotion carried risks of inaccurate or misleading advice, often amplified through personal and emotionally resonant narratives in an environment with limited oversight and enforcement. Despite the small and fragmented evidence base, these findings highlight the urgent need for updated regulatory guidance, standardized and enforceable disclosure requirements, stronger platform accountability, and targeted digital literacy initiatives. Policymakers and researchers should act proactively to safeguard public health.

Indexed as

Health PromotionPrescription DrugsSocial MediaHumansMedia ExposurePrescription Drugs

Identifiers

PMID41870429
PMCPMC13010202

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.