ArticleBMJ open2026
Mapping digital literacies interventions in health professions education and exploring the implications for trainees' online advocacy and knowledge mobilisation activities: a critical scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe spread of misinformation on social media is a major public health concern. In response, health professionals and trainees are engaging in online advocacy and knowledge mobilisation to counter inaccurate claims and offer reliable information to patients and the public. Digital literacy education is particularly important given the rapid evolution of social media platforms and the difficulty users face in distinguishing credible content from misleading material. This study will use a critical scoping review, informed by Engeström's Activity Theory, to examine what digital literacies are explicitly taught in health professions education and how these interventions prepare trainees to engage in social media-based advocacy and knowledge mobilisation activities, if at all. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Databases searched will include Medline, Embase, CINAHL, APA PsycINFO, Education Source and ERIC. A search strategy was developed in Medline, peer reviewed by another librarian and then translated into the other databases. All databases were searched from 2015 to 30 June 2026. Articles will be screened by title, abstract and full text before being extracted. A numerical analysis, whereby descriptive statistics are calculated using Microsoft Excel and a directed content analysis using deductive and inductive coding approaches informed by Activity Theory, will be completed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this scoping review. Findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications, academic conferences and through knowledge mobilisation workshops and research rounds.
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.