公共卫生合作中社交媒体影响者的新兴格局:范围审查

IF 1.6 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Health Promotion Practice Pub Date : 2024-06-13 DOI:10.1177/15248399241258442
Alexandra E Michel, Emily S Miller, Prachi Singh, Gretchen Schulz, Rupali J Limaye
{"title":"公共卫生合作中社交媒体影响者的新兴格局:范围审查","authors":"Alexandra E Michel, Emily S Miller, Prachi Singh, Gretchen Schulz, Rupali J Limaye","doi":"10.1177/15248399241258442","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Social media content creators or \"influencers\" are an increasingly influential voice in the public discourse generally, including global perceptions and practices related to health. In response, public health entities are increasingly embracing social media influencers (SMIs) as potential health promotion collaborators. Despite burgeoning interest in the potential of these partnerships, research evaluating this strategy remains limited. To address this gap, we conducted a scoping review to characterize and describe the current landscape of health promotion collaborations with SMIs with a focus on current practices. A search of six electronic databases (PubMed, SCOPUS, Communication & Mass Media Complete, CINAHL Plus, Web of Science, and APA PsycINFO) revealed wide-ranging and inconsistent approaches to these partnerships, including their optimal practices, data reported, and their evaluation criteria. Among the 658 articles initially identified, 15 publications met our inclusion criteria, spanning 7 countries, 8 social media platforms, 11 distinct health topics, and 21 different outcome measures. Basic information necessary for comparing across interventions was often lacking. We noted a lack of consensus on what constitutes an SMI with 53% of included studies lacking any definition or criteria. Although SMIs offer substantial promise as an emerging opportunity for health promotion, particularly for populations that may be otherwise difficult to identify or reach, this review highlights how the current lack of standardized methodologies and metrics prevents meaningful comparisons between collaborations and evaluations of their effectiveness. Based on these findings, we propose four key criteria to aid practitioners in the implementation and evaluation of SMI collaborations.</p>","PeriodicalId":47956,"journal":{"name":"Health Promotion Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Emerging Landscape of Social Media Influencers in Public Health Collaborations: A Scoping Review.\",\"authors\":\"Alexandra E Michel, Emily S Miller, Prachi Singh, Gretchen Schulz, Rupali J Limaye\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15248399241258442\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Social media content creators or \\\"influencers\\\" are an increasingly influential voice in the public discourse generally, including global perceptions and practices related to health. In response, public health entities are increasingly embracing social media influencers (SMIs) as potential health promotion collaborators. Despite burgeoning interest in the potential of these partnerships, research evaluating this strategy remains limited. To address this gap, we conducted a scoping review to characterize and describe the current landscape of health promotion collaborations with SMIs with a focus on current practices. A search of six electronic databases (PubMed, SCOPUS, Communication & Mass Media Complete, CINAHL Plus, Web of Science, and APA PsycINFO) revealed wide-ranging and inconsistent approaches to these partnerships, including their optimal practices, data reported, and their evaluation criteria. Among the 658 articles initially identified, 15 publications met our inclusion criteria, spanning 7 countries, 8 social media platforms, 11 distinct health topics, and 21 different outcome measures. Basic information necessary for comparing across interventions was often lacking. We noted a lack of consensus on what constitutes an SMI with 53% of included studies lacking any definition or criteria. Although SMIs offer substantial promise as an emerging opportunity for health promotion, particularly for populations that may be otherwise difficult to identify or reach, this review highlights how the current lack of standardized methodologies and metrics prevents meaningful comparisons between collaborations and evaluations of their effectiveness. Based on these findings, we propose four key criteria to aid practitioners in the implementation and evaluation of SMI collaborations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47956,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Promotion Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Promotion Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15248399241258442\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Promotion Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15248399241258442","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

社交媒体内容创作者或 "影响者 "在公众讨论(包括与健康有关的全球观念和实践)中的影响力越来越大。为此,公共卫生机构越来越多地将社交媒体 "影响者"(SMIs)视为潜在的健康促进合作者。尽管人们对这些合作关系的潜力越来越感兴趣,但对这一策略进行评估的研究仍然有限。为了填补这一空白,我们进行了一次范围界定审查,以描述和描述当前与 SMIs 开展健康促进合作的情况,并重点关注当前的实践。通过对六个电子数据库(PubMed、SCOPUS、Communication & Mass Media Complete、CINAHL Plus、Web of Science 和 APA PsycINFO)的检索,我们发现了这些合作方式的广泛性和不一致性,包括其最佳实践、报告数据和评估标准。在最初确定的 658 篇文章中,有 15 篇符合我们的纳入标准,涉及 7 个国家、8 个社交媒体平台、11 个不同的健康主题和 21 种不同的结果测量方法。比较不同干预措施所需的基本信息往往缺乏。我们注意到,53% 的纳入研究缺乏任何定义或标准,对什么是 SMI 缺乏共识。尽管 SMI 为健康促进带来了巨大的前景,特别是对于那些难以识别或难以接触的人群,但本综述强调了目前标准化方法和衡量标准的缺乏如何阻碍了合作之间有意义的比较以及对其有效性的评估。基于这些发现,我们提出了四项关键标准,以帮助从业人员实施和评估 SMI 合作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Emerging Landscape of Social Media Influencers in Public Health Collaborations: A Scoping Review.

Social media content creators or "influencers" are an increasingly influential voice in the public discourse generally, including global perceptions and practices related to health. In response, public health entities are increasingly embracing social media influencers (SMIs) as potential health promotion collaborators. Despite burgeoning interest in the potential of these partnerships, research evaluating this strategy remains limited. To address this gap, we conducted a scoping review to characterize and describe the current landscape of health promotion collaborations with SMIs with a focus on current practices. A search of six electronic databases (PubMed, SCOPUS, Communication & Mass Media Complete, CINAHL Plus, Web of Science, and APA PsycINFO) revealed wide-ranging and inconsistent approaches to these partnerships, including their optimal practices, data reported, and their evaluation criteria. Among the 658 articles initially identified, 15 publications met our inclusion criteria, spanning 7 countries, 8 social media platforms, 11 distinct health topics, and 21 different outcome measures. Basic information necessary for comparing across interventions was often lacking. We noted a lack of consensus on what constitutes an SMI with 53% of included studies lacking any definition or criteria. Although SMIs offer substantial promise as an emerging opportunity for health promotion, particularly for populations that may be otherwise difficult to identify or reach, this review highlights how the current lack of standardized methodologies and metrics prevents meaningful comparisons between collaborations and evaluations of their effectiveness. Based on these findings, we propose four key criteria to aid practitioners in the implementation and evaluation of SMI collaborations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health Promotion Practice
Health Promotion Practice PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
5.30%
发文量
126
期刊介绍: Health Promotion Practice (HPP) publishes authoritative articles devoted to the practical application of health promotion and education. It publishes information of strategic importance to a broad base of professionals engaged in the practice of developing, implementing, and evaluating health promotion and disease prevention programs. The journal"s editorial board is committed to focusing on the applications of health promotion and public health education interventions, programs and best practice strategies in various settings, including but not limited to, community, health care, worksite, educational, and international settings. Additionally, the journal focuses on the development and application of public policy conducive to the promotion of health and prevention of disease.
期刊最新文献
Assessment of Public Health Agency and Utility Training Needs for CDC National Wastewater Surveillance System Jurisdictions in the United States. Formative Research to Design and Evaluate Caring Text Messages for American Indian and Alaska Native Youth, College Students, and Veterans. Group-Based Medical Mistrust in Adolescents With Poorly Controlled Asthma Living in Rural Areas. "Did You Wash Your Hands?" The Socioeconomic Inequalities Preventing Youth From Adopting Protective Behaviors During COVID-19 in South Africa. Using Community-Based Participatory Research to Conduct a Collaborative Needs Assessment of Mental Health Service Users: Identifying Research Questions and Building Academic-Community Trust.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1