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.

An exploration of the experiences and self-generated strategies used when navigating everyday life with Long Covid.

BACKGROUND: Around one in ten people who contract Covid-19 report ongoing symptoms or 'Long Covid'. Without any known interventions to cure the condition, forms of self-management are routinely prescribed by healthcare professionals and described by people with the condition. However, there is limited research exploring what strategies are used to navigate everyday life with Long Covid, and experiences that initiate development of these strategies. Our study aimed to explore the range and influence of self-generated strategies used by people with Long Covid to navigate everyday life within the context of their own condition. METHODS: Forming part of the Long Covid Personalised Self-managemenT support co-design and EvaluatioN (LISTEN) project, we conducted a qualitative study using narrative interviews with adults who were not hospitalised with Covid-19. Participants aged over 18 years, who self-identified with Long Covid, were recruited from England and Wales. Data were analysed with patient contributors using a reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Eighteen participants (mean age = 44 years, SD = 13 years) took part in interviews held between December 2021 and February 2022. Themes were constructed which depicted 1) the landscape behind the Long Covid experience and 2) the everyday experience of participants' Long Covid. The everyday experience comprised a combination of physical, emotional, and social factors, forming three sub-themes: centrality of physical symptoms, navigating 'experts' and the 'true colour' of personal communities, and a rollercoaster of psychological ambiguity). The third theme, personal strategies to manage everyday life was constructed from participants' unique presentations and self-generated solutions to manage everyday life. This comprised five sub-themes: seeking reassurance and knowledge, developing greater self-awareness through monitoring, trial and error of 'safe' ideas, building in pleasure and comfort, and prioritising 'me'. CONCLUSIONS: Among this sample of adults with Long Covid, their experiences highlighted the unpredictable nature of the condition but also the use of creative and wide ranging self-generated strategies. The results offer people with Long Covid, and healthcare professionals supporting them, an overview of the collective evidence relating to individuals' self-management which can enable ways to live 'better' and regain some sense of identity whilst facing the impact of a debilitating, episodic condition. TRIAL REGISTRATION: LISTEN ISRCTN36407216.

Parental recommendations and exercise attitudes in congenital hearts.

BACKGROUND: Children and young people with CHD benefit from regular physical activity. Parents are reported as facilitators and barriers to their children's physical activity. The aim of this study was to explore parental factors, child factors, and their clinical experience on physical activity participation in young people with CHD. METHODS: An online questionnaire was co-developed with parents (n = 3) who have children with CHD. The survey was then distributed in the United Kingdom by social media and CHD networks, between October 2021 and February 2022. Data were analysed using mixed methods. RESULTS: Eighty-three parents/guardians responded (94% mothers). Young people with CHD were 7.3 ± 5.0 years old (range 0-20 years; 53% female) and 84% performed activity. Parental participation in activity (X2(1) = 6.9, P < 0.05) and perceiving activity as important for their child were positively associated with activity (Fisher's Exact, P < 0.05). Some parents (∼15%) were unsure of the safety of activity, and most (∼70%) were unsure where to access further information about activity. Fifty-two parents (72%) had never received activity advice in clinic, and of the 20 who received advice, 10 said it was inconsistent. Qualitative analysis produced the theme "Knowledge is power and comfort." Parents described not knowing what activity was appropriate or the impact of it on their child. CONCLUSION: Parental participation and attitudes towards activity potentially influence their child's activity. A large proportion of young people performed activity despite a lack and inconsistency of activity advice offered by CHD clinics. Young people with CHD would benefit from activity advice with their families in clinics.

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

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.