Display options
Cite
Balatsoukas P, Kennedy CM, Buchan I, et al. The Role of Social Network Technologies in Online Health Promotion: A Narrative Review of Theoretical and Empirical Factors Influencing Intervention Effectiveness. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(6):e141doi: 10.2196/jmir.3662.
Balatsoukas, P., Kennedy, C. M., Buchan, I., Powell, J., & Ainsworth, J. (2015). The Role of Social Network Technologies in Online Health Promotion: A Narrative Review of Theoretical and Empirical Factors Influencing Intervention Effectiveness. Journal of medical Internet research, 17(6), e141. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3662
Balatsoukas, Panos, et al. "The Role of Social Network Technologies in Online Health Promotion: A Narrative Review of Theoretical and Empirical Factors Influencing Intervention Effectiveness." Journal of medical Internet research vol. 17,6 (2015): e141. doi: https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3662
Balatsoukas P, Kennedy CM, Buchan I, Powell J, Ainsworth J. The Role of Social Network Technologies in Online Health Promotion: A Narrative Review of Theoretical and Empirical Factors Influencing Intervention Effectiveness. J Med Internet Res. 2015 Jun 11;17(6):e141. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3662. PMID: 26068087; PMCID: PMC4526933.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Med Internet Res. 2015 Jun 11;17(6):e141. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3662.

The Role of Social Network Technologies in Online Health Promotion: A Narrative Review of Theoretical and Empirical Factors Influencing Intervention Effectiveness.

Journal of medical Internet research

Panos Balatsoukas, Catriona M Kennedy, Iain Buchan, John Powell, John Ainsworth

Affiliations

  1. Institute of Population Health, Centre for Health Informatics, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom. [email protected].

PMID: 26068087 PMCID: PMC4526933 DOI: 10.2196/jmir.3662

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Social network technologies have become part of health education and wider health promotion—either by design or happenstance. Social support, peer pressure, and information sharing in online communities may affect health behaviors. If there are positive and sustained effects, then social network technologies could increase the effectiveness and efficiency of many public health campaigns. Social media alone, however, may be insufficient to promote health. Furthermore, there may be unintended and potentially harmful consequences of inaccurate or misleading health information. Given these uncertainties, there is a need to understand and synthesize the evidence base for the use of online social networking as part of health promoting interventions to inform future research and practice.

OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to review the research on the integration of expert-led health promotion interventions with online social networking in order to determine the extent to which the complementary benefits of each are understood and used. We asked, in particular, (1) How is effectiveness being measured and what are the specific problems in effecting health behavior change?, and (2) To what extent is the designated role of social networking grounded in theory?

METHODS: The narrative synthesis approach to literature review was used to analyze the existing evidence. We searched the indexed scientific literature using keywords associated with health promotion and social networking. The papers included were only those making substantial study of both social networking and health promotion—either reporting the results of the intervention or detailing evidence-based plans. General papers about social networking and health were not included.

RESULTS: The search identified 162 potentially relevant documents after review of titles and abstracts. Of these, 42 satisfied the inclusion criteria after full-text review. Six studies described randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness of online social networking within health promotion interventions. Most of the trials investigated the value of a "social networking condition" in general and did not identify specific features that might play a role in effectiveness. Issues about the usability and level of uptake of interventions were more common among pilot studies, while observational studies showed positive evidence about the role of social support. A total of 20 papers showed the use of theory in the design of interventions, but authors evaluated effectiveness in only 10 papers.

CONCLUSIONS: More research is needed in this area to understand the actual effect of social network technologies on health promotion. More RCTs of greater length need to be conducted taking into account contextual factors such as patient characteristics and types of a social network technology. Also, more evidence is needed regarding the actual usability of online social networking and how different interface design elements may help or hinder behavior change and engagement. Moreover, it is crucial to investigate further the effect of theory on the effectiveness of this type of technology for health promotion. Research is needed linking theoretical grounding with observation and analysis of health promotion in online networks.

Keywords: content analysis; health behavior change; health behaviors; health education; health promotion; social media; social networking; social technology; theoretical grounding

References

  1. Public Health Rep. 2010 Jan-Feb;125 Suppl 1:29-37 - PubMed
  2. J Med Internet Res. 2010;12(1):e4 - PubMed
  3. Am J Public Health. 2010 Jul;100(7):1282-9 - PubMed
  4. J Med Internet Res. 2010;12(2):e18 - PubMed
  5. J Med Internet Res. 2010;12(2):e19 - PubMed
  6. BMJ. 2004 May 15;328(7449):1166 - PubMed
  7. J Med Internet Res. 2010;12(2):e17 - PubMed
  8. J Med Internet Res. 2010;12(4):e71 - PubMed
  9. Psychosom Med. 1976 Sep-Oct;38(5):300-14 - PubMed
  10. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2011 Mar;5(2):325-32 - PubMed
  11. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(3):e49 - PubMed
  12. J Health Commun. 2011;16 Suppl 1:59-76 - PubMed
  13. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(4):e120 - PubMed
  14. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(1):e30 - PubMed
  15. Am J Prev Med. 2012 Nov;43(5):527-32 - PubMed
  16. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2012;182:93-103 - PubMed
  17. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2012;12:120 - PubMed
  18. Health Promot Pract. 2013 Jan;14(1):15-23 - PubMed
  19. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(2):e25 - PubMed
  20. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(2):e30 - PubMed
  21. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013 Mar;22(3):183-6 - PubMed
  22. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:436 - PubMed
  23. J Adolesc Health. 2013 Jul;53(1):98-104 - PubMed
  24. Acad Med. 2013 Sep;88(9):1376-83 - PubMed
  25. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(11):e262 - PubMed
  26. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(2):e40 - PubMed
  27. Health Expect. 2014 Jun;17(3):345-52 - PubMed
  28. BMJ Open. 2014;4(10):e006374 - PubMed
  29. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2015 Jan;22(1):243-56 - PubMed
  30. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(1):e7 - PubMed
  31. Health Educ Q. 1981 Summer;8(2):147-65 - PubMed
  32. Health Educ Q. 1988 Summer;15(2):175-83 - PubMed
  33. Am J Health Promot. 1997 Sep-Oct;12(1):38-48 - PubMed
  34. Am Psychol. 2005 Jul-Aug;60(5):410-21 - PubMed
  35. PLoS Med. 2005 Aug;2(8):e124 - PubMed
  36. BMJ. 2006 May 20;332(7551):1207-10 - PubMed
  37. BMC Public Health. 2007;7:88 - PubMed
  38. Addict Behav. 2007 Sep;32(9):1769-86 - PubMed
  39. Patient Educ Couns. 2008 Feb;70(2):193-8 - PubMed
  40. Telemed J E Health. 2008 Oct;14(8):775-82 - PubMed
  41. J Med Internet Res. 2008;10(5):e53 - PubMed
  42. J Med Internet Res. 2008;10(5):e55 - PubMed
  43. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008;8:58 - PubMed
  44. J Med Internet Res. 2009;11(1):e11 - PubMed
  45. Health Educ Res. 2009 Aug;24(4):646-54 - PubMed
  46. Nurs Res. 2009 Nov-Dec;58(6):419-26 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types

Grant support