Social media for dissemination of research evidence for health and social care practitioners: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Conference:

SAPC ASM 2024 - Bristol

Talk Code:

2D.1

Presenter:

Dr Sarah Roberts-Lewis

Twitter:

@SGUL_PHRI

Co-authors:

Dr H Baxter, Ms G Mein, Ms S Quirke-McFarlane, Dr F J Leggat, Ms H M Garner, Ms M Powell, Dr S White, Professor L Bearne

Author institutions:

St George’s University of London, National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR); St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, University of Bristol

Problem

Evidence-based practice is known to improve healthcare performance. However, busy practitioners are often limited in their ability to engage with research evidence. Social media has potential to facilitate the rapid dissemination of research evidence to healthcare practitioners, but its effectiveness is largely unknown and has not been tested quantitatively by meta-analysis. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of social media as a way to disseminate research evidence to health and social care practitioners.

Approach

The design and interpretation of this systematic review was informed by patient and public involvement including consultations with stakeholders and a steering group including health and social care practitioners, educators and patients. We searched electronic databases for articles in English, published between January 2010 and January 2023, that evaluated social media interventions for disseminating research evidence to qualified, post registration health and social care practitioners. Outcomes were grouped into four domains (reach, engagement, direct dissemination, impact). Screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessments (using the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale) were carried out by at least two independent reviewers. Meta-analyses of standardised pooled effects were carried out for between and within group effectiveness of social media and comparisons between social media platforms, formats and strategies. Certainty of evidence for the size of cumulative effects were assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) framework.

Findings

In total, 6461 records were identified. Fifty mixed quality articles that were heterogeneous in design and outcome were included (nine were randomised controlled trials). No included studies tested dissemination of research evidence to social care practitioners. Included studies almost universally indicated effects in favour of social media interventions for dissemination to healthcare practitioners, although effect sizes varied. Cumulative evidence indicated moderate certainty of large and moderate between group effects of social media interventions on direct dissemination and impact respectively. After social media interventions, cumulative evidence showed moderate certainty of large within group effects on reach, engagement and direct dissemination and low certainty of a small within group effect on impacting thinking or practice. There was also evidence for the effectiveness of using multiple social media platforms (including Twitter and Facebook), images (particularly infographics), and intensive social media strategies with frequent, daily posts and involving influential others.

Consequences

Social media is effective for disseminating research evidence to healthcare practitioners and should be used by researchers and practitioners to enhance research sharing. More intense social media campaigns may be more effective and different social media characteristics, including platforms, formats and strategies may enhance reach, engagement, direct dissemination and impact. Implications include our recommendations for effective dissemination of research evidence to healthcare practitioners.

Submitted by:

Sarah Roberts-Lewis

Funding acknowledgement:

We would like to acknowledge the support of the National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) and St George’s University of London. This study presents independent research funded by NIHR evidence [2022/01]. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.