Social Media in Heart Failure: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review

Yousif Eliya · Danielle Pellegrini · Andreas B. Gevaert · Jillianne Code · Harriette G.C. Van Spall

14 citations0/0 files storedCurrent Cardiology Reviews

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Social Media in Health Education Media and Digital Communication Health Literacy and Information Accessibility

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Among social media (SoMe) platforms, Twitter and YouTube have gained popularity, facilitating communication between cardiovascular professionals and patients. OBJECTIVE: This mixed-methods systematic review aimed to assess the source profile and content of Twitter and YouTube posts about heart failure (HF). METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase and Medline using the terms "cardiology," "social media," and "heart failure". We included full-text manuscripts published between January 1, 1999, and April 14, 2019. We searched Twitter and YouTube for posts using the hashtags "#heartfailure", "#HF", or "#CHF" on May 15, 2019 and July 6, 2019. We performed a descriptive analysis of the data. RESULTS: Three publications met inclusion criteria, providing 677 tweets for source profile analysis; institutions (54.8%), health professionals (26.6%), and patients (19.4%) were the most common source profiles. The publications provided 1,194 tweets for content analysis: 83.3% were on education for professionals; 33.7% were on patient empowerment; and 22.3% were on research promotion. Our search on Twitter and YouTube generated 2,252 tweets and > 400 videos, of which we analyzed 260 tweets and 260 videos. Sources included institutions (53.5% Twitter, 64.2% You- Tube), health professionals (42.3%, 28.5%), and patients (4.2%, 7.3%). Content included education for professionals (39.2% Twitter, 62.3% YouTube), patient empowerment (20.4%, 21.9%), research promotion (28.8%, 13.1%), professional advocacy (5.8%, 2.7%), and research collaboration (5.8%, 0%). CONCLUSION: Twitter and YouTube are platforms for knowledge translation in HF, with contributions from institutions, health professionals, and less commonly, from patients. Both focus largely on education for professionals and less commonly on patient empowerment. Twitter includes more research promotion, research collaboration, and professional advocacy than YouTube.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 14 citations exist upstream.

References

2009The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration 2014Healthcare information on YouTube: A systematic review 2018Social Medicine: Twitter in Healthcare 2019Understanding Social Media 2016Changes in the Professional Lives of Cardiologists Over 2 Decades 2016Twitter as a Potential Data Source for Cardiovascular Disease Research 2014The Role of Social Media in Recruiting for Clinical Trials in Pregnancy 2019Effect of Promotion via Social Media on Access of Articles in an Academic Medical Journal: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Cited by

2024Social Networks as a Tool for Evidence-Based Health Education: Umbrella Review

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.