Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34057201›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2021

Behavioural interventions delivered through interactive social media for health behaviour change, health outcomes, and health equity in the adult population.

Jennifer Petkovic, Stephanie Duench, Jessica Trawin, Omar Dewidar, Jordi Pardo Pardo, Rosiane Simeon, Marie DesMeules, Diane Gagnon, Janet Hatcher Roberts, Alomgir Hossain and 6 more

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 82 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
82citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
24.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

82 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 122 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

22 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Jennifer PetkovicBruyère Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Stephanie DuenchBruyere Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Jessica TrawinBruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Omar DewidarSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Jordi Pardo PardoOttawa Hospital Research Institute, The Ottawa Hospital - General Campus, Ottawa, Canada.
Rosiane SimeonBruyère Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Marie DesMeulesSocial Determinants and Science Integration/ Direction des déterminants sociaux et de l'intégration scientifique, Public Health Agency of Canada/Agence de santé publique du Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
Diane GagnonDepartment of Communication, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Janet Hatcher RobertsWHO Collaborating Centre on Knowledge Translation and Health Equity, Ottawa, Canada.
Alomgir HossainCardiovascular Research Methods Centre, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Kevin PottieFamily Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Tamara RaderCanadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), Ottawa, Canada.
Peter TugwellDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Manosila YoganathanBruyère Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Justin PresseauClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Vivian WelchMethods Centre, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Bruyère · CAUniversity of Ottawa · CACanadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health · CAOttawa Hospital · CAOttawa Hospital Research InstitutePublic Health Agency of Canada · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocial networking platforms offer a wide reach for public health interventions allowing communication with broad audiences using tools that are generally free and straightforward to use and may be combined with other components, such as public health policies. We define interactive social media as activities, practices, or behaviours among communities of people who have gathered online to interactively share information, knowledge, and opinions.

objectivesWe aimed to assess the effectiveness of interactive social media interventions, in which adults are able to communicate directly with each other, on changing health behaviours, body functions, psychological health, well-being, and adverse effects. Our secondary objective was to assess the effects of these interventions on the health of populations who experience health inequity as defined by PROGRESS-Plus. We assessed whether there is evidence about PROGRESS-Plus populations being included in studies and whether results are analysed across any of these characteristics. SEARCH

methodsWe searched CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE (including trial registries) and PsycINFO. We used Google, Web of Science, and relevant web sites to identify additional studies and searched reference lists of included studies. We searched for published and unpublished studies from 2001 until June 1, 2020. We did not limit results by language. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before-and-after (CBAs) and interrupted time series studies (ITSs). We included studies in which the intervention website, app, or social media platform described a goal of changing a health behaviour, or included a behaviour change technique. The social media intervention had to be delivered to adults via a commonly-used social media platform or one that mimicked a commonly-used platform. We included studies comparing an interactive social media intervention alone or as a component of a multi-component intervention with either a non-interactive social media control or an active but less-interactive social media comparator (e.g. a moderated versus an unmoderated discussion group). Our main outcomes were health behaviours (e.g. physical activity), body function outcomes (e.g. blood glucose), psychological health outcomes (e.g. depression), well-being, and adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were process outcomes important for behaviour change and included knowledge, attitudes, intention and motivation, perceived susceptibility, self-efficacy, and social support. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used a pre-tested data extraction form and collected data independently, in duplicate. Because we aimed to assess broad outcomes, we extracted only one outcome per main and secondary outcome categories prioritised by those that were the primary outcome as reported by the study authors, used in a sample size calculation, and patient-important. MAIN

resultsWe included 88 studies (871,378 participants), of which 84 were RCTs, three were CBAs and one was an ITS. The majority of the studies were conducted in the USA (54%). In total, 86% were conducted in high-income countries and the remaining 14% in upper middle-income countries. The most commonly used social media platform was Facebook (39%) with few studies utilising other platforms such as WeChat, Twitter, WhatsApp, and Google Hangouts. Many studies (48%) used web-based communities or apps that mimic functions of these well-known social media platforms. We compared studies assessing interactive social media interventions with non-interactive social media interventions, which included paper-based or in-person interventions or no intervention. We only reported the RCT results in our 'Summary of findings' table. We found a range of effects on health behaviours, such as breastfeeding, condom use, diet quality, medication adherence, medical screening and testing, physical activity, tobacco use, and vaccination. For example, these interventions may increase physical activity and medical screening tests but there was little to no effect for other health behaviours, such as improved diet or reduced tobacco use (20,139 participants in 54 RCTs). For body function outcomes, interactive social media interventions may result in small but important positive effects, such as a small but important positive effect on weight loss and a small but important reduction in resting heart rate (4521 participants in 30 RCTs). Interactive social media may improve overall well-being (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.79, moderate effect, low-certainty evidence) demonstrated by an increase of 3.77 points on a general well-being scale (from 1.15 to 6.48 points higher) where scores range from 14 to 70 (3792 participants in 16 studies). We found no difference in effect on psychological outcomes (depression and distress) representing a difference of 0.1 points on a standard scale in which scores range from 0 to 63 points (SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.12, low-certainty evidence, 2070 participants in 12 RCTs). We also compared studies assessing interactive social media interventions with those with an active but less interactive social media control (11 studies). Four RCTs (1523 participants) that reported on physical activity found an improvement demonstrated by an increase of 28 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity per week (from 10 to 47 minutes more, SMD 0.35, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.59, small effect, very low-certainty evidence). Two studies found little to no difference in well-being for those in the intervention and control groups (SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.13, small effect, low-certainty evidence), demonstrated by a mean change of 0.4 points on a scale with a range of 0 to 100. Adverse events related to the social media component of the interventions, such as privacy issues, were not reported in any of our included studies. We were unable to conduct planned subgroup analyses related to health equity as only four studies reported relevant data. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThis review combined data for a variety of outcomes and found that social media interventions that aim to increase physical activity may be effective and social media interventions may improve well-being. While we assessed many other outcomes, there were too few studies to compare or, where there were studies, the evidence was uncertain. None of our included studies reported adverse effects related to the social media component of the intervention. Future studies should assess adverse events related to the interactive social media component and should report on population characteristics to increase our understanding of the potential effect of these interventions on reducing health inequities.

Indexed as

Health BehaviorHealth EquitySocial MediaSocial NetworkingAdolescentAdultBehavior TherapyBiasControlled Before-After StudiesExerciseFruitHeart RateHumansInterrupted Time Series AnalysisRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID34057201
PMCPMC8406980
OpenAlexW3165187742

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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 Socratic graph.