Dataset Information

Social media and mobile health technology for cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Cancer is one of the leading causes of death globally and many jurisdictions have developed population-based cancer screening programmes to reduce the public health burden of disease. However, screening participation remains suboptimal. Social media and other mobile health (mHealth) technologies are increasingly being used for health promotion and behaviour change. This paper reports on the protocol for a systematic review exploring the effect of social media and other mHealth interventions on cancer screening participation and intention. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This protocol is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) checklist. We will include any randomised controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies with a pre/post design conducted in adults ?18 years of age that report on the effectiveness of a social media or mHealth intervention on screening participation or intention (inclusive of breast, cervical, colorectal, prostate and lung cancer). Interventions will be inclusive of those delivered online or through a computer using an established social media platform or a new purpose-built platform, or those delivered through cellphones or other wireless technologies. Any comparator will be acceptable (control group, alternate intervention or pre/post design). We will search Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Scopus, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Communication and Mass Media Complete from 1 January 2000 to 31 May 2019. Two independent reviewers will screen titles, abstracts and full-text articles with conflicts resolved through discussion or by a third reviewer, as needed. The two reviewers will also independently complete risk of bias assessments for each included study. We will report on the characteristics of the studies, participants and interventions in descriptive narrative form and report the absolute and relative differences in screening and intention attributable to social media and mobile technology interventions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:As this is a systematic review, ethical approval for conduct of this study is not required. We will pursue publication of study results in a relevant peer-reviewed journal and report our findings according to the PRISMA checklist. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019139615.

SUBMITTER: Ruco A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7044840 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Social media and mobile health technology for cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

Ruco Arlinda A Dossa Fahima F Tinmouth Jill J Llovet Diego D Kishibe Teruko T Baxter Nancy N NN

BMJ open 20200205 2

<h4>Introduction</h4>Cancer is one of the leading causes of death globally and many jurisdictions have developed population-based cancer screening programmes to reduce the public health burden of disease. However, screening participation remains suboptimal. Social media and other mobile health (mHealth) technologies are increasingly being used for health promotion and behaviour change. This paper reports on the protocol for a systematic review exploring the effect of social media and other mHeal ...[more]

PMID: 32029500

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDigital interventions are proposed as one way by which effective treatments for self-harm and suicidal ideation may be improved and their scalability enhanced. Mobile devices offer a potentially powerful medium to deliver evidence-based interventions with greater specificity to the individual when the intervention is needed. The recent proliferation of publicly available mobile apps designed for suicide prevention underlines the need for robust evidence to promote safe practice.ObjectiveThis review aimed to examine the effectiveness of currently available mobile health (mHealth) technology tools in reducing suicide-specific outcomes.MethodsThe following databases were searched: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and relevant sources of gray literature. All published and unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs), pseudo-RCTs, and pre-post observational studies that evaluated the effectiveness of mHealth technology in suicide prevention delivered via mobile computing and communication technology were included. Studies were included if they measured at least one suicide outcome variable (ie, suicidal ideation, suicidal intent, nonsuicidal self-injurious behavior, and suicidal behavior). A total of 2 review authors independently extracted data and assessed study suitability, in accordance with the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool, on July 31, 2018. Owing to the heterogeneity of outcomes found across studies, results were not amenable for pooled synthesis, and a meta-analysis was not performed. A narrative synthesis of the available research is presented here.ResultsA total of 7 studies met criteria for inclusion . Four published articles that reported on the effectiveness of the following mobile phone apps were included: iBobbly, Virtual Hope Box, BlueIce, and Therapeutic Evaluative Conditioning. Results demonstrated some positive impacts for individuals at elevated risk of suicide or self-harm, including reductions in depression, psychological distress, and self-harm and increases in coping self-efficacy. None of the apps evaluated demonstrated the ability to significantly decrease suicidal ideation compared with a control condition. In addition, 3 unpublished and recently completed trials also met criteria for inclusion in the review.ConclusionsFurther research is needed to evaluate the efficacy of stand-alone mHealth technology-based interventions in suicide prevention. The small number of studies reported in this review tentatively indicate that such tools may have a positive impact on suicide-specific outcomes. Future mHealth intervention evaluations would benefit from addressing the following 3 main methodological limitations : (1) heterogeneity of outcomes: a lack of standardized measurement of suicide outcomes across studies; (2) ecological validity: the tendency to exclude potential participants because of the elevated suicide risk may reduce generalizability within clinical settings; and (3) app regulation and definition: the lack of a standardized classification system for mHealth intervention type points to the need for better definition of the scope of such technologies to promote safe practice.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42017072899; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=72899.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.2196/resprot.8635.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough at present there is broad agreement among researchers, health professionals, and policy makers on the need to control and combat health misinformation, the magnitude of this problem is still unknown. Consequently, it is fundamental to discover both the most prevalent health topics and the social media platforms from which these topics are initially framed and subsequently disseminated.ObjectiveThis systematic review aimed to identify the main health misinformation topics and their prevalence on different social media platforms, focusing on methodological quality and the diverse solutions that are being implemented to address this public health concern.MethodsWe searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science for articles published in English before March 2019, with a focus on the study of health misinformation in social media. We defined health misinformation as a health-related claim that is based on anecdotal evidence, false, or misleading owing to the lack of existing scientific knowledge. We included (1) articles that focused on health misinformation in social media, including those in which the authors discussed the consequences or purposes of health misinformation and (2) studies that described empirical findings regarding the measurement of health misinformation on these platforms.ResultsA total of 69 studies were identified as eligible, and they covered a wide range of health topics and social media platforms. The topics were articulated around the following six principal categories: vaccines (32%), drugs or smoking (22%), noncommunicable diseases (19%), pandemics (10%), eating disorders (9%), and medical treatments (7%). Studies were mainly based on the following five methodological approaches: social network analysis (28%), evaluating content (26%), evaluating quality (24%), content/text analysis (16%), and sentiment analysis (6%). Health misinformation was most prevalent in studies related to smoking products and drugs such as opioids and marijuana. Posts with misinformation reached 87% in some studies. Health misinformation about vaccines was also very common (43%), with the human papilloma virus vaccine being the most affected. Health misinformation related to diets or pro-eating disorder arguments were moderate in comparison to the aforementioned topics (36%). Studies focused on diseases (ie, noncommunicable diseases and pandemics) also reported moderate misinformation rates (40%), especially in the case of cancer. Finally, the lowest levels of health misinformation were related to medical treatments (30%).ConclusionsThe prevalence of health misinformation was the highest on Twitter and on issues related to smoking products and drugs. However, misinformation on major public health issues, such as vaccines and diseases, was also high. Our study offers a comprehensive characterization of the dominant health misinformation topics and a comprehensive description of their prevalence on different social media platforms, which can guide future studies and help in the development of evidence-based digital policy action plans.

Project description:BackgroundThe popularization of social media has led to the coalescing of user groups around mental health conditions; in particular, depression. Social media offers a rich environment for contextualizing and predicting users' self-reported burden of depression. Modern artificial intelligence (AI) methods are commonly employed in analyzing user-generated sentiment on social media. In the forthcoming systematic review, we will examine the content validity of these computer-based health surveillance models with respect to standard diagnostic frameworks. Drawing from a clinical perspective, we will attempt to establish a normative judgment about the strengths of these modern AI applications in the detection of depression.MethodsWe will perform a systematic review of English and German language publications from 2010 to 2020 in PubMed, APA PsychInfo, Science Direct, EMBASE Psych, Google Scholar, and Web of Science. The inclusion criteria span cohort, case-control, cross-sectional studies, randomized controlled studies, in addition to reports on conference proceedings. The systematic review will exclude some gray source materials, specifically editorials, newspaper articles, and blog posts. Our primary outcome is self-reported depression, as expressed on social media. Secondary outcomes will be the types of AI methods used for social media depression screen, and the clinical validation procedures accompanying these methods. In a second step, we will utilize the evidence-strengthening Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, Study type (PICOS) tool to refine our inclusion and exclusion criteria. Following the independent assessment of the evidence sources by two authors for the risk of bias, the data extraction process will culminate in a thematic synthesis of reviewed studies.DiscussionWe present the protocol for a systematic review which will consider all existing literature from peer reviewed publication sources relevant to the primary and secondary outcomes. The completed review will discuss depression as a self-reported health outcome in social media material. We will examine the computational methods, including AI and machine learning techniques which are commonly used for online depression surveillance. Furthermore, we will focus on standard clinical assessments, as indicating content validity, in the design of the algorithms. The methodological quality of the clinical construct of the algorithms will be evaluated with the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) framework. We conclude the study with a normative judgment about the current application of AI to screen for depression on social media.Systematic review registrationInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO (registration number CRD42020187874).

Project description:Mobile technology interventions (MTI) are becoming increasingly popular in the management of chronic health behaviors. Most MTI allow individuals to monitor medication use, record symptoms, or store and activate disease-management action plans. Therefore, MTI may have the potential to improve low adherence to medication and action plans for individuals with asthma, which is associated with poor clinical outcomes.A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the efficacy of MTI on clinical outcomes as well as adherence in individuals with asthma. As the use of evidence-based behavior change techniques (BCT) has been shown to improve intervention effects, we also conducted exploratory analyses to determine the role of BCT and engagement with MTI as moderators of MTI efficacy.We searched electronic databases for randomized controlled trials up until June 2016. Random effect models were used to assess the effect of MTI on clinical outcomes as well as adherence to preventer medication or symptom monitoring. Mixed effects models assessed whether the features of the MTI (ie, use of BCT) and how often a person engaged with MTI moderated the effects of MTI.The literature search located 11 studies meeting the inclusion criteria, with 9 providing satisfactory data for meta-analysis. Compared with standard treatment, MTI had moderate to large effect sizes (Hedges g) on medication adherence and clinical outcomes. MTI had no additional effects on adherence or clinical outcomes when compared with paper-based monitoring. No moderator effects were found, and the number of studies was small. A narrative review of the two studies, which are not included in the meta-analysis, found similar results.This review indicated the efficacy of MTI for self-management in individuals with asthma and also indicated that MTI appears to be as efficacious as paper-based monitoring. This review also suggested a need for robust studies to examine the effects of BCT use and engagement on MTI efficacy to inform the evidence base for MTI in individuals with asthma.

Project description:BackgroundSocial media holds exciting promise for advancing mental health research recruitment, however, the extent and efficacy to which these platforms are currently in use are underexplored.ObjectiveA systematic review was conducted to characterize the current use and efficacy of social media in recruiting participants for mental health research.MethodA literature review was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsychINFO. Only non-duplicative manuscripts written in the English language and published between 1/1/2004-3/31/2019 were selected for further screening. Data extracted included study type and design, participant inclusion criteria, social media platform, advertising strategy, final recruited sample size, recruitment location, year, monetary incentives, comparison to other recruitment methods if performed, and final cost per participant.ResultsA total of 176 unique studies that used social media for mental health research recruitment were reviewed. The majority of studies were cross-sectional (62.5%) in design and recruited adults. Facebook was overwhelmingly the recruitment platform of choice (92.6%), with the use of paid advertisements being the predominant strategy (60.8%). Of the reviewed studies, substance abuse (43.8%) and mood disorders (15.3%) were the primary subjects of investigation. In 68.3% of studies, social media recruitment performed as well as or better than traditional recruitment methods in the number and cost of final enrolled participants. The majority of studies used Facebook for recruitment at a median cost per final recruited study participant of $19.47. In 55.6% of the studies, social media recruitment was the more cost-effective recruitment method when compared to traditional methods (e.g., referrals, mailing).ConclusionSocial media appears to be an effective and economical recruitment tool for mental health research. The platform raises methodological and privacy concerns not covered in current research regulations that warrant additional consideration.

Project description:IntroductionIn low-resource settings, community health workers are frontline providers who shoulder the health service delivery burden. Increasingly, mobile technologies are developed, tested, and deployed with community health workers to facilitate tasks and improve outcomes. We reviewed the evidence for the use of mobile technology by community health workers to identify opportunities and challenges for strengthening health systems in resource-constrained settings.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature from health, medical, social science, and engineering databases, using PRISMA guidelines. We identified a total of 25 unique full-text research articles on community health workers and their use of mobile technology for the delivery of health services.ResultsCommunity health workers have used mobile tools to advance a broad range of health aims throughout the globe, particularly maternal and child health, HIV/AIDS, and sexual and reproductive health. Most commonly, community health workers use mobile technology to collect field-based health data, receive alerts and reminders, facilitate health education sessions, and conduct person-to-person communication. Programmatic efforts to strengthen health service delivery focus on improving adherence to standards and guidelines, community education and training, and programmatic leadership and management practices. Those studies that evaluated program outcomes provided some evidence that mobile tools help community health workers to improve the quality of care provided, efficiency of services, and capacity for program monitoring.DiscussionEvidence suggests mobile technology presents promising opportunities to improve the range and quality of services provided by community health workers. Small-scale efforts, pilot projects, and preliminary descriptive studies are increasing, and there is a trend toward using feasible and acceptable interventions that lead to positive program outcomes through operational improvements and rigorous study designs. Programmatic and scientific gaps will need to be addressed by global leaders as they advance the use and assessment of mobile technology tools for community health workers.

Project description:BackgroundEffective 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.ObjectiveThis 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.MethodsElectronic 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.ResultsSearches 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.ConclusionsThis 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 registrationPROSPERO CRD42022378793; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=378793.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/45684.

Dataset Information

Social media and mobile health technology for cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

Publications

Social media and mobile health technology for cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets