Social Media for ImpLementing Evidence (SMILE): Conceptual Framework

Examining the Effectiveness of Social Media for the Dissemination of Research Evidence for Health and Social Care Practitioners: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Social media use has potential to facilitate the rapid dissemination of research evidence to busy health and social care practitioners.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to quantitatively synthesize evidence of the between- and within-group effectiveness of social media for dissemination of research evidence to health and social care practitioners. It also compared effectiveness between different social media platforms, formats, and strategies.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases for articles in English that were published between January 1, 2010, and January 10, 2023, and that evaluated social media interventions for disseminating research evidence to qualified, postregistration health and social care practitioners in measures of reach, engagement, direct dissemination, or impact. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were carried out by at least 2 independent reviewers. Meta-analyses of standardized pooled effects were carried out for between- and within-group effectiveness of social media and comparisons between platforms, formats, and strategies. Certainty of evidence for outcomes was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) framework.

RESULTS

In total, 50 mixed-quality articles that were heterogeneous in design and outcome were included (n=9, 18% were randomized controlled trials [RCTs]). Reach (measured in number of practitioners, impressions, or post views) was reported in 26 studies. Engagement (measured in likes or post interactions) was evaluated in 21 studies. Direct dissemination (measured in link clicks, article views, downloads, or altmetric attention score) was analyzed in 23 studies (8 RCTs). Impact (measured in citations or measures of thinking and practice) was reported in 13 studies. Included studies almost universally indicated effects in favor of social media interventions, although effect sizes varied. Cumulative evidence indicated moderate certainty of large and moderate between-group effects of social media interventions on direct dissemination (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.88; P=.02) and impact (SMD 0.76; P<.001). After social media interventions, cumulative evidence showed moderate certainty of large within-group effects on reach (SMD 1.99; P<.001), engagement (SMD 3.74; P<.001), and direct dissemination (SMD 0.82; P=.004) and low certainty of a small within-group effect on impacting thinking or practice (SMD 0.45; P=.02). There was also evidence for the effectiveness of using multiple social media platforms (including Twitter, subsequently rebranded X; and Facebook), images (particularly infographics), and intensive social media strategies with frequent, daily posts and involving influential others. No included studies tested the dissemination of research evidence to social care practitioners.

CONCLUSIONS

Social media was effective for disseminating research evidence to health care practitioners. More intense social media campaigns using specific platforms, formats, and strategies may be more effective than less intense interventions. Implications include recommendations for effective dissemination of research evidence to health care practitioners and further RCTs in this field, particularly investigating the dissemination of social care research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42022378793; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=378793.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR2-10.2196/45684.

From bench to policy: a critical analysis of models for evidence-informed policymaking in healthcare

Background

The use of research evidence in policy making is a complex and challenging process that has a long history in various fields, especially in healthcare. Different terms and concepts have been used to describe the relationship between research and policy, but they often lack clarity and consensus. To address this gap, several strategies and models have been proposed to facilitate evidence informed policy making and to identify the key factors and mechanisms involved. This study aims to critically review the existing models of evidence informed policy making (EIPM) in healthcare and to assess their strengths and limitations.

Method

A systematic search and review conducted to identify and critically assess EIPM models in healthcare. We searched PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases as major electronic databases and applied predefined inclusion criteria to select the models. We also checked the citations of the included models to find other scholars' perspectives. Each model was described and critiqued each model in detail and discussed their features and limitations.

Result

Nine models of EIPM in healthcare were identified. While models had some strengths in comprehension, flexibility and theoretical foundations, analysis also identified limitations including: presupposing rational policymaking; lacking alternatives for time-sensitive situations; not capturing policy complexity; neglecting unintended effects; limited context considerations; inadequate complexity concepts; limited collaboration guidance; and unspecified evidence adaptations.

Conclusion

The reviewed models provide useful frameworks for EIPM but need further improvement to address their limitations. Concepts from sociology of knowledge, change theory and complexity science can enrich the models. Future EIPM models should better account for the complexity of research-policy relationships and provide tailored strategies based on the policy context.

Understanding How and Under What Circumstances Social Media Supports Health Care Providers' Knowledge Use in Clinical Practice: A Realist Review

Background: Although theoretical frameworks exist to guide social media interventions, few of them make it explicit how social media is supposed to work to improve the knowledge use by health care providers. This study aimed to synthesize literature to understand how and under what circumstances social media supports knowledge use by health care providers in clinical practice. Methods: We followed the realist review methodology described by Pawson et al. It involved six iterative steps: (1) develop an initial program theory; (2) search for evidence; (3) select and appraise studies; (4) extract data; (5) synthesize data; and (6) draw conclusions. Results: Of the 7,175 citations retrieved, 32 documents were prioritized for synthesis. We identified two causal explanations of how social media could support health care providers' knowledge use, each underpinned by distinct context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations. We defined these causal explanations as: (1) the rationality-driven approach that primarily uses open social media platforms (n = 8 CMOs) such as Twitter, and (2) the relationality-driven approach that primarily uses closed social media platforms (n = 6 CMOs) such as an online community of practice. Key mechanisms of the rationality-driven approach included social media content developers capabilities and capacities, in addition to recipients' access to, perceptions of, engagement with, and intentions to use the messages, and ability to function autonomously within their full scope of practice. However, the relationality-driven approach encompassed platform receptivity, a sense of common goals, belonging, trust and ownership, accessibility to expertise, and the fulfillment of needs as key mechanisms. Conclusion: Social media has the potential to support knowledge use by health care providers. Future research is necessary to refine the two causal explanations and investigate their potential synergistic effects on practice change.

Oral-Hygiene-Related Mobile Apps in the French App Stores: Assessment of Functionality and Quality

Mobile health apps can contribute to increased quality of individual oral hygiene behaviors. This study provides an overview and an evaluation of quality of oral-hygiene-related mobile apps currently available in Google Play Store and the French Apple App. A shortlist of nine apps was assessed by 10 oral health professionals using the Mobile App Rating Scale. Intraclass correlation was used to evaluate interrater agreement. Best quality scores were obtained by Oral-B (3.4 ± 0.97), Colgate Connect (3.20 ± 0.63), and Preventeeth (3.10 ± 1.1) and worst ones by Mimizaur se brosse les dents (1.80 ± 0.79) and Kolibree (2.30 ± 0.82). The subjective quality scores ranged from 2.62 ± 0.61 (Oral-B) to 1.5 ± 0.61 (MSD). Specificity of the content ranged from 3.46 ± 0.84 (Preventeeth) to 1.78 ± 0.47 (Mimizaur se brosse les dents). Thus, even if oral health professionals positively evaluated the quality of oral-hygiene-related mobile apps, they are less assertive concerning their impact on the user's knowledge, attitudes, and intentions to change, as well as the likelihood of actual change in the oral hygiene behavior. Further investigations are needed to assess whether information from these apps is consistent with oral hygiene recommendations and to determine the long-term impacts of these apps.