The use of social media as a tool for stakeholder engagement in health service design and quality improvement: A scoping review.
Facebook
Social media
Twitter
digital health
health communications
internet
online
public health
Journal
Digital health
ISSN: 2055-2076
Titre abrégé: Digit Health
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101690863
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
received:
16
12
2020
accepted:
01
02
2021
entrez:
15
3
2021
pubmed:
16
3
2021
medline:
16
3
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Health-related social media use is common but few health organisations have embraced its potential for engaging stakeholders in service design and quality improvement (QI). Social media may provide new ways to engage more diverse stakeholders and conduct health design and QI activities. To map how social media is used by health services, providers and consumers to contribute to service design or QI activities. The scoping review was undertaken using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. An advisory committee of stakeholders provided guidance throughout the review. Inclusion criteria were studies of any health service stakeholders, in any health setting, where social media was used as a tool for communications which influenced or advocated for changes to health service design or delivery. A descriptive numerical summary of the communication models, user populations and QI activities was created from the included studies, and the findings were further synthesised using deductive qualitative content analysis. 40 studies were included. User populations included organisations, clinical and non-clinical providers, young people, people with chronic illness/disability and First Nations people. Twitter was the most common platform for design and QI activities. Most activities were conducted using two-way communication models. A typology of social media use is presented, identifying nine major models of use. This review identifies the ways in which social media is being used as a tool to engage stakeholders in health service design and QI, with different models of use appropriate for different activities, user populations and stages of the QI cycle.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Health-related social media use is common but few health organisations have embraced its potential for engaging stakeholders in service design and quality improvement (QI). Social media may provide new ways to engage more diverse stakeholders and conduct health design and QI activities.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To map how social media is used by health services, providers and consumers to contribute to service design or QI activities.
METHODS
METHODS
The scoping review was undertaken using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. An advisory committee of stakeholders provided guidance throughout the review. Inclusion criteria were studies of any health service stakeholders, in any health setting, where social media was used as a tool for communications which influenced or advocated for changes to health service design or delivery. A descriptive numerical summary of the communication models, user populations and QI activities was created from the included studies, and the findings were further synthesised using deductive qualitative content analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
40 studies were included. User populations included organisations, clinical and non-clinical providers, young people, people with chronic illness/disability and First Nations people. Twitter was the most common platform for design and QI activities. Most activities were conducted using two-way communication models. A typology of social media use is presented, identifying nine major models of use.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
This review identifies the ways in which social media is being used as a tool to engage stakeholders in health service design and QI, with different models of use appropriate for different activities, user populations and stages of the QI cycle.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33717499
doi: 10.1177/2055207621996870
pii: 10.1177_2055207621996870
pmc: PMC7917429
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
2055207621996870Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2021.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of conflicting interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Références
Collegian. 2014;21(2):103-9
pubmed: 25109208
Health Informatics J. 2017 Sep;23(3):170-180
pubmed: 27102887
BMJ Qual Saf. 2014 Apr;23(4):290-8
pubmed: 24025320
BMJ Qual Saf. 2017 Oct;26(10):845-848
pubmed: 28428244
Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2016;10(3):373-382
pubmed: 28230545
Electron Commer Res Appl. 2018 Jan-Feb;27:139-151
pubmed: 30147636
BMJ Qual Saf. 2016 Jun;25(6):389-91
pubmed: 26658773
J Med Internet Res. 2016 Jul 20;18(7):e201
pubmed: 27439392
Public Health Rep. 2017 Mar/Apr;132(2):140-148
pubmed: 28135430
Curr Cardiol Rep. 2014 Jul;16(7):504
pubmed: 24947833
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
Perm J. 2016 Fall;20(4):15-224
pubmed: 27455070
Am J Infect Control. 2016 Nov 1;44(11):1231-1236
pubmed: 27810065
Soc Sci Med. 2019 Jul;232:366-373
pubmed: 31132544
J Health Commun. 2011 Apr;16(4):448-54
pubmed: 21391040
J Public Health Manag Pract. 2017 Nov/Dec;23(6):577-580
pubmed: 28166175
J Hosp Med. 2016 Jan;11(1):52-5
pubmed: 26390277
BMC Med Ethics. 2015 Sep 17;16(1):63
pubmed: 26383770
Health Policy. 2013 May;110(2-3):291-7
pubmed: 23489388
Health Promot Pract. 2015 Nov;16(6):878-84
pubmed: 26220280
J Digit Imaging. 2017 Jun;30(3):323-327
pubmed: 28091834
Int J STD AIDS. 2011 Mar;22(3):171-2
pubmed: 21464456
Int J Med Inform. 2018 Jun;114:114-120
pubmed: 29126701
J Healthc Manag. 2014 Nov-Dec;59(6):447-60
pubmed: 25647968
BMJ Qual Saf. 2016 Jun;25(6):404-13
pubmed: 26464518
J Nurs Manag. 2017 Nov;25(8):632-639
pubmed: 28736934
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Jan;67(1):56-64
pubmed: 24189091
Int J Qual Health Care. 2012 Feb;24(1):28-38
pubmed: 22109631
BMJ Qual Saf. 2014 Oct;23(10):838-46
pubmed: 24748372
BMJ. 2019 Jan 17;364:k5408
pubmed: 30655245
J Adv Nurs. 2019 Jan;75(1):119-128
pubmed: 30109719
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2012;172:54-70
pubmed: 22910502
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014 Mar 27;14:118
pubmed: 24674648
BMJ Qual Saf. 2013 Mar;22(3):251-5
pubmed: 23349387
Am J Med. 2015 Dec;128(12):1335-50
pubmed: 26159633
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Oct 10;19(10):e320
pubmed: 29017993
J Med Internet Res. 2014 Oct 16;16(10):e238
pubmed: 25320863
J Eval Clin Pract. 2012 Feb;18(1):63-9
pubmed: 20738467
Contemp Nurse. 2018 Feb;54(1):44-51
pubmed: 29447071
BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2019 Jun;9(2):219-224
pubmed: 26823291
Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct 2;169(7):467-473
pubmed: 30178033
Milbank Q. 2001;79(2):281-315
pubmed: 11439467
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2014 Aug 15;63(32):681-5
pubmed: 25121710
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2018 Apr;13(2):149-159
pubmed: 29350083
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Apr 24;15(5):
pubmed: 29695038
Implement Sci. 2010 Sep 20;5:69
pubmed: 20854677
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Aug 09;20(8):e249
pubmed: 30093370
Healthc Q. 2010;13(3):86-90
pubmed: 20523159
Nurs Leadersh (Tor Ont). 2017;30(2):71-83
pubmed: 29083295
Eval Health Prof. 2015 Dec;38(4):518-37
pubmed: 26405265
Int J Equity Health. 2016 May 25;15:81
pubmed: 27225519
Clin Ther. 2017 Nov;39(11):2189-2195
pubmed: 29100731
Health Informatics J. 2014 Mar;20(1):50-8
pubmed: 24550564
Reprod Health Matters. 2013 May;21(41):57-68
pubmed: 23684188
J Med Internet Res. 2014 Nov 27;16(11):e264
pubmed: 25431831
Health Expect. 2018 Aug;21(4):707-713
pubmed: 29512248
BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Aug 26;16:442
pubmed: 27562728