Social media as a tool for oral health promotion: A systematic review

Abstract

Social media platforms are common means of sharing information, personal experiences, and lifestyle. They can also be utilized as cost-effective methods for individuals to acquire health information and promote oral health. The purpose of the present study was to systematically review the current literature on the interventions taken through social media for promoting lay people's oral health. This systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42023395005) followed the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. A comprehensive search was conducted in four electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Library) for relevant articles published between 2012 and 2023. Data such as study design, sample size, follow-up duration, utilized social media platforms and main findings were extracted from the eligible studies. The quality of the studies included in the systematic review was evaluated by the quality assessment tools for intervention studies recommended by the National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. Out of the 1934 records identified in the initial search, 10 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative synthesis. These studies comprised seven randomized control trials, one field trial and two quasi-experimental. Various social media platforms, including Telegram, Instagram, YouTube, WhatsApp and Snapchat, were used for communication with patients. Some studies solely utilized social media interventions, while others combined online and traditional interventions. The quality assessment categorized 30% of the studies as "strong", 50% as "moderate", and the remaining as "weak". The implementation of social media interventions positively influenced multiple aspects of oral health among the laypeople. Online platforms such as YouTube, WhatsApp, Instagram, and Telegram can be effectively utilized to promote oral health among patients.

Cite this work

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

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 60 citations exist upstream.

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