Developing Reporting Guidelines for Social Media Research (RESOME) by Using a Modified Delphi Method: Protocol for Guideline Development.

BACKGROUND: Social media platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, are being increasingly used to deliver public health interventions. Despite the high level of research interest, there is no consensus or guidance on how to report on social media interventions. Reporting guidelines that incorporate elements from behavior change theories and social media engagement frameworks could foster more robust evaluations that capture outcomes that have an impact on behavior change and engagement. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this project is to develop, publish, and promote a list of items for our Reporting Guidelines for Social Media Research (RESOME) checklist. METHODS: RESOME will be developed by using a modified Delphi approach wherein 2 rounds of questionnaires will be sent to experts and stakeholders. The questionnaires will ask them to rate their agreement with a series of statements until a level of consensus is reached. This will be followed by a web-based consensus meeting to finalize the reporting guidelines. After the consensus meeting, the reporting guidelines will be published in the form of a paper outlining the need for the new guidelines and how the guidelines were developed, along with the finalized checklist for reporting. Prior to publication, the guidelines will be piloted to check for understanding and simplify the language used, if necessary. RESULTS: The first draft of RESOME has been developed. Round 1 of the Delphi survey took place between July and December 2021. Round 2 is due to take place in February 2022, and the web-based consensus meeting will be scheduled for the spring of 2022. CONCLUSIONS: Developing RESOME has the potential to contribute to improved reporting, and such guidelines will make it easier to assess the effectiveness of social media interventions. Future work will be needed to evaluate our guidelines' usefulness and practicality. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/31739.

PERFECTED enhanced recovery pathway (PERFECT-ER) versus standard acute hospital care for people after hip fracture surgery who have cognitive impairment: a feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Assess feasibility of a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) to measure clinical and cost-effectiveness of an enhanced recovery pathway for people with hip fracture and cognitive impairment (CI). DESIGN: Feasibility trial undertaken between 2016 and 2018. SETTING: Eleven acute hospitals from three UK regions. PARTICIPANTS: 284 participants (208 female:69 male). INCLUSION CRITERIA: aged >60 years, confirmed proximal hip fracture requiring surgical fixation and CI; preoperative AMTS ≤8 in England or a 4AT score ≥1 in Scotland; minimum of 5 days on study ward; a 'suitable informant' able to provide proxy measures, recruited within 7 days of hip fracture surgery. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: no hip surgery; not expected to survive beyond 4 weeks; already enrolled in a clinical trial. INTERVENTION: PERFECT-ER, an enhanced recovery pathway with 15 quality targets supported by a checklist and manual, a service improvement lead a process lead and implemented using a plan-do-study-act model. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility outcomes: recruitment and attrition, intervention acceptability, completion of participant reported outcome measures, preliminary estimates of potential effectiveness using mortality, EQ-5D-5L, economic and clinical outcome scores. RESULTS: 282 participants were consented and recruited (132, intervention) from a target of 400. Mean recruitment rates were the same in intervention and control sites, (range: 1.2 and 2.7 participants/month). Retention was 230 (86%) at 1 month and 54%(144) at 6 months. At 3 months a relatively small effect (one quarter of an SD) was observed on health-related quality of life of the patient measured with EQ-5D-5L proxy in the intervention group. CONCLUSION: This trial design was feasible with modifications to recruitment. Mechanisms for delivering consistency in the PERFECT-ER intervention and participant retention need to be addressed. However, an RCT may be a suboptimal research design to evaluate this intervention due to the complexity of caring for people with CI after hip fracture. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN99336264.

A Study Protocol to Explore and Improve Access to Medical Services and Information for Recently Diagnosed Elderly Patients with Cancer in Rural Settings.

INTRODUCTION: This two-phase study seeks to contribute to research in the field of rural cancer health; specifically, the aim is to gain insight into the experiences of seeking, accessing and using information and health services throughout the cancer journey (diagnosis, treatment and follow-up care) for recently diagnosed (≤6 months) older patients (≥65 years) in rural areas. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Data will be collected through in-depth semi-structured interviews. In phase 1 (before 23rd March 2020) interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals (HCP) to explore their experiences of delivering care to their elderly patients. In the second phase (starting January 2021) we will conduct interviews with cancer patients to understand the impact of COVID-19 and shielding on their experiences of being diagnosed, attending appointments and accessing and receiving support from community organisations and informal support from family and friends. Data gathered will be analysed using the Framework Method. ETHICS: The study has been approved by the Health Research Authority and the United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust. Initial favourable ethical opinion was granted on 1st October 2019. Second favourable ethical opinion for amendments to reflect the impact of COVID-19 was received on 10th August 2020. The study protocol has been registered on Research Registry.

Use of Social Media to Promote Cancer Screening and Early Diagnosis: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Social media is commonly used in public health interventions to promote cancer screening and early diagnosis, as it can rapidly deliver targeted public health messages to large numbers of people. However, there is currently little understanding of the breadth of social media interventions and evaluations, whether they are effective, and how they might improve outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aimed to map the evidence for social media interventions to improve cancer screening and early diagnosis, including their impact on behavior change and how they facilitate behavior change. METHODS: Five databases and the grey literature were searched to identify qualitative and quantitative evaluations of social media interventions targeting cancer screening and early diagnosis. Two reviewers independently reviewed each abstract. Data extraction was carried out by one author and verified by a second author. Data on engagement was extracted using an adapted version of the key performance indicators and metrics related to social media use in health promotion. Insights, exposure, reach, and differing levels of engagement, including behavior change, were measured. The behavior change technique taxonomy was used to identify how interventions facilitated behavior change. RESULTS: Of the 23 publications and reports included, the majority (16/23, 70%) evaluated national cancer awareness campaigns (eg, breast cancer awareness month). Most interventions delivered information via Twitter (13/23, 57%), targeted breast cancer (12/23, 52%), and measured exposure, reach, and low- to medium-level user engagement, such as number of likes (9/23, 39%). There were fewer articles about colorectal and lung cancer than about breast and prostate cancer campaigns. One study found that interventions had less reach and engagement from ethnic minority groups. A small number of articles (5/23, 22%) suggested that some types of social media interventions might improve high-level engagement, such as intended and actual uptake of screening. Behavior change techniques, such as providing social support and emphasizing the consequences of cancer, were used to engage users. Many national campaigns delivered fundraising messages rather than actionable health messages. CONCLUSIONS: The limited evidence suggests that social media interventions may improve cancer screening and early diagnosis. Use of evaluation frameworks for social media interventions could help researchers plan more robust evaluations that measure behavior change. We need a greater understanding of who engages with these interventions to know whether social media can be used to reduce some health inequalities in cancer screening and early diagnosis. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033592.