Cited by 14Social Media in Health EducationAcademic Publishing and Open AccessHealth Sciences Research and Education

The Use of Social Media for Dissemination of Research Evidence to Health and Social Care Practitioners: Protocol for a Systematic Review

Open access
Roberts-Lewis, Sarah F, Baxter, Helen A, Mein, Gill, Quirke-McFarlane, Sophia, Leggat, Fiona J, Garner, Hannah M, Powell, Martha, White, Sarah +1 more·2023·JMIR Research Protocols

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Effective dissemination of research to health and social care practitioners enhances clinical practice and evidence-based care. Social media use has potential to facilitate dissemination to busy practitioners. Objective: This is a protocol for a systematic review that will quantitatively synthesize evidence of the effectiveness of social media, compared with no social media, for dissemination of research evidence to health and social care practitioners. Social media platforms, formats, and sharing mechanisms used for effective dissemination of research evidence will also be identified and compared. Methods: Electronic database searches (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC, LISTA, and OpenGrey) will be conducted from January 1, 2010, to January 10, 2023, for studies published in English. Randomized, nonrandomized, pre-post study designs or case studies evaluating the effect of social media on dissemination of research evidence to postregistration health and social care practitioners will be included. Studies that do not involve social media or dissemination or those that evaluate dissemination of nonresearch information (eg, multisource educational materials) to students or members of the public only, or without quantitative data on outcomes of interest, will be excluded. Screening will be carried out by 2 independent reviewers. Data extraction and quality assessment, using either the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias or the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, will be completed by 2 independent reviewers. Outcomes of interest will be reported in 4 domains (reach, engagement, dissemination, and impact). Data synthesis will include quantitative comparisons using narrative text, tables, and figures. A meta-analysis of standardized pooled effects will be undertaken, and subgroup analyses will be applied, if appropriate. Results: Searches and screening will be completed by the end of May 2023. Data extraction and analyses will be completed by the end of July 2023, after which findings will be synthesized and reported by the end of October 2023. Conclusions: This systematic review will summarize the evidence for the effectiveness of social media for the dissemination of research evidence to health and social care practitioners. The limitations of the evidence may include multiple outcomes or methodological heterogeneity that limit meta-analyses, potential risk of bias in included studies, and potential publication bias. The limitations of the study design may include potential insensitivity of the electronic database search strategy. The findings from this review will inform the dissemination practice of health and care research. Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42022378793; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=378793 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/45684

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/45684

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Roberts-Lewis, S. F., Baxter, H. A., Mein, G., Quirke-McFarlane, S., Leggat, F. J., Garner, H. M., Powell, M., White, S., & Bearne, L.
Affiliations
  • St George's, University of London (GB)
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (GB)
  • St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Roberts-Lewis, Sarah F
Venue
JMIR Research Protocols
Published
2023-05-12
Volume
12
Pages
e45684
ISSN
1929-0748 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4322489884
Cited by
13
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7
FWCI
0.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Research Protocols (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • St George's Online Research Archive (St George's University of London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
Keywords
social media, research dissemination, health and social care professionals, evidence-based practice, practitioner engagement, health professions education, publication bias, methodological heterogeneity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review