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

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. 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

Examining the Effectiveness of Social Media for the Dissemination of Research Evidence for Health and Social Care Practitioners: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…The protocol was registered on the International Register of Systematic Review (PROSPERO; CRD42022378793) and published a priori [ 29 ]. It was reported in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidance [ 30 ] ( Multimedia Appendix 1 ).…”

“…Excluded study designs included protocols, reviews, studies using only qualitative methods, opinion pieces, and conference abstracts with no linked full-text article. Articles were excluded if they preceded 2010 (refer to the protocol by Roberts-Lewis et al [ 29 ]), were not available in English, or did not feature research evidence–related social media of relevance to postregistration health or social care practitioners (eg, only targeting students, service users, or the public or featuring non–health and social care research topics). Articles were also excluded if the social media campaign was targeted at practitioners for purposes other than the dissemination of research evidence (eg, delivering multisource clinical education courses, organizational information, administrative tasks, practical peer support, day-to-day interpersonal clinical communication, professional identity, or reputation promotion).…”

“…For full search strategies, refer to Multimedia Appendix 2 and the protocol by Roberts-Lewis et al [ 29 ]. Key search terms were grouped as follows:…”

“…Data from the included studies were extracted independently by at least 2 of 5 reviewers (see the Selection Process section) using a data extraction form developed a priori [ 29 ]. The accuracy of data extraction was confirmed by comparison between extraction forms, returning to the original article to resolve any disparity.…”

“…For studies that reported multiple outcome measures, only outcomes of interest were collected (reach, engagement, direct dissemination, and impact). Different measures for the same outcome were prioritized for inclusion in meta-analyses according to the a priori protocol [ 29 ]. Subsequent additions were made to the prioritization order to account for heterogeneous data reported in the included studies; these included aggregated total interactions, other types of post interactions, and the measurement time frame according to the most common time frames for each outcome of interest ( Textbox 2 ).…”