The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
The Use of Social Media for Dissemination of Research Evidence to Health and Social Care Practitioners: Protocol for a Systematic Review (Preprint)
Open accessPreprint — published as 10.2196/45684 · Paper page
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. CLINICALTRIAL: PROSPERO CRD42022378793; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=378793 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT: DERR1-10.2196/45684
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 51 · Cited by 13
Research works printed but not linked: 42
- 10.3310/themedreview-02628 · DOI
- 10.3310/nihropenres.13268.1 · DOI
- 10.12968/bjon.2016.25.15.860 · DOI
- 10.1002/9781119399490.ch18 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jhin.2015.01.012 · DOI
- 10.3310/rfupdate-2019 · DOI
- 10.1186/s12909-017-0916-1 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.hpe.2020.09.002 · DOI
- 10.1057/s41599-021-00903-w · DOI
- 10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1089/tmj.2022.0213 · DOI
- 10.2196/jmir.4347 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10916-018-0969-7 · DOI
- 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022298 · DOI
- 10.2196/13552 · DOI
- 10.1177/1524839911405850 · DOI
- 10.2196/jmir.1933 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.5210/ojphi.v10i2.8270 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2196/15121 · DOI
- 10.1111/anae.14780 · DOI
- 10.2196/23205 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31828ffc23 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s40596-014-0278-5 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2196/preprints.19686 · DOI
- 10.2196/jmir.4763 · DOI
- 10.7748/phc.13.1.7.s7 · DOI
- 10.1093/med/9780199659425.003.0019 · DOI
- 10.1211/pj.2017.20203952 · DOI
- 10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1136/bmj.l4898 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/14651858.ED000142 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.3760/cma.j.cn112338-20201112-01324 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.08.022 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0068914 · DOI
- 10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/mhw.32666 · DOI
- 10.1002/mhw.32869 · DOI
- 10.1002/mhw.33122 · DOI
- 10.7717/peerj.10304/table-2 · DOI
- 10.7554/elife.14155.006 · DOI
- 10.4159/harvard.9780674423947.c2 · DOI
- 10.26226/morressier.57c5383fd462b80296c9b9f3 · DOI
Metadata
- 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
- ORCID
- Venue
- JMIR Research Protocols
- Publisher
- JMIR Publications Inc.
- Published
- 2023-01-12
- Volume
- 12
- Pages
- e45684-e45684
- ISSN
- 1929-0748 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC10221530
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- 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 › Library and Information Sciences › 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