#PGADFacts: Results from a 12-month knowledge translation campaign on persistent genital arousal disorder/genito-pelvic dysesthesia (PGAD/GPD)

Jackowich, Robyn A.; Young, Michaela; Poirier, Évéline; Pukall, Caroline F.

doi:10.3138/cjhs.2022-0011

Cited by 3 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A total of 36 studies investigated the impact of social media on journal articles, with samples ranging from a single journal article [ 88 ] to 15,078 articles from multiple journals [ 54 ]. In total, 8 studies focused on research blogs [ 40 , 76 , 87 ] and microblogs [ 47 , 49 , 57 , 82 , 85 ], 4 studies examined research conference social media posts and hashtags [ 71 , 74 , 86 , 89 ], 2 studies investigated clinical guidelines [ 60 , 63 ], and 1 study tested research-related posts linked to health care hashtags [ 62 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Half of the studies explored multiple social media platforms and the other half of the studies examined a single platform. Twitter was used in all but 1 study [ 85 ], Facebook was used in 23 studies [ 40 , 42 - 44 , 47 , 48 , 53 , 57 , 60 , 63 , 64 , 67 - 70 , 76 , 77 , 80 - 82 , 85 , 89 ], LinkedIn was used in 8 studies [ 40 , 48 , 60 , 63 , 64 , 68 , 87 , 89 ], Instagram was used in 6 studies [ 57 , 62 , 67 , 68 , 76 , 87 ], and YouTube was used in 5 studies [ 58 , 60 , 63 , 64 , 87 ], whereas TikTok [ 87 ], Weibo [ 39 ], Google+ [ 64 ], Tumblr [ 81 ], and Spotify [ 87 ] were each used in 1 study. The most common media formats examined were text posts, which usually included links and images.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The most common reasons for risk of bias included insufficient information provided about the allocation sequence, handling of missing data, or prioritization of multiple eligible outcome measurement time points. In total, 11 nonrandomized studies had low risk of bias [ 49 , 50 , 55 - 57 , 63 , 65 , 70 , 72 , 79 , 81 ]; 25 nonrandomized studies had moderate risk of bias [ 51 - 54 , 58 , 59 , 61 , 62 , 64 , 66 - 69 , 71 , 73 - 78 , 80 , 82 - 85 ]; and 5 nonrandomized studies had high risk of bias [ 60 , 86 - 89 ] ( Multimedia Appendix 3 ). The most common reasons for risk of bias included targeted selection of studies for social media sharing and incomplete reporting of data handling.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A total of 10 studies evaluated reach by reporting the numbers of practitioners receiving posts [ 41 , 45 , 66 , 67 , 75 , 78 , 79 , 84 , 86 , 89 ]. In total, 23 studies evaluated reach using social media analytics (17 in impressions [ 41 , 45 , 49 , 51 , 53 , 56 , 57 , 66 , 68 , 73 , 75 , 78 , 83 , 85 , 86 , 88 , 89 ]; 6 in views [ 62 , 63 , 76 , 79 , 81 , 87 ]; and none by reporting accesses).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Pooled findings indicated a large between-group effect on impressions and views in favor of Twitter (vs Facebook and Instagram; SMD 1.87, 95% CI 1.54-2.21; P <.001; I 2 =0%; GRADE low) and Facebook (vs Instagram; SMD 1.19, 95% CI 0.64-1.75; P <.001; I 2 =46%; GRADE low) [ 57 , 68 ]. However, no effect was shown between platforms in the number of practitioners who were followers on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram [ 67 ] ( Multimedia Appendix 3 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Examining the Effectiveness of Social Media for the Dissemination of Research Evidence for Health and Social Care Practitioners: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Roberts-Lewis,

Baxter,

Mein

et al. 2024

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Social media use has potential to facilitate the rapid dissemination of research evidence to busy health and social care practitioners. Objective This study aims to quantitatively synthesize evidence of the between- and within-group effectiveness of social media for dissemination of research evidence to health and social care practitioners. It also compared effectiveness between different social media platforms, formats, and strategies. Methods We searched electronic databases for articles in English that were published between January 1, 2010, and January 10, 2023, and that evaluated social media interventions for disseminating research evidence to qualified, postregistration health and social care practitioners in measures of reach, engagement, direct dissemination, or impact. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were carried out by at least 2 independent reviewers. Meta-analyses of standardized pooled effects were carried out for between- and within-group effectiveness of social media and comparisons between platforms, formats, and strategies. Certainty of evidence for outcomes was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) framework. Results In total, 50 mixed-quality articles that were heterogeneous in design and outcome were included (n=9, 18% were randomized controlled trials [RCTs]). Reach (measured in number of practitioners, impressions, or post views) was reported in 26 studies. Engagement (measured in likes or post interactions) was evaluated in 21 studies. Direct dissemination (measured in link clicks, article views, downloads, or altmetric attention score) was analyzed in 23 studies (8 RCTs). Impact (measured in citations or measures of thinking and practice) was reported in 13 studies. Included studies almost universally indicated effects in favor of social media interventions, although effect sizes varied. Cumulative evidence indicated moderate certainty of large and moderate between-group effects of social media interventions on direct dissemination (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.88; P=.02) and impact (SMD 0.76; P<.001). After social media interventions, cumulative evidence showed moderate certainty of large within-group effects on reach (SMD 1.99; P<.001), engagement (SMD 3.74; P<.001), and direct dissemination (SMD 0.82; P=.004) and low certainty of a small within-group effect on impacting thinking or practice (SMD 0.45; P=.02). There was also evidence for the effectiveness of using multiple social media platforms (including Twitter, subsequently rebranded X; and Facebook), images (particularly infographics), and intensive social media strategies with frequent, daily posts and involving influential others. No included studies tested the dissemination of research evidence to social care practitioners. Conclusions Social media was effective for disseminating research evidence to health care practitioners. More intense social media campaigns using specific platforms, formats, and strategies may be more effective than less intense interventions. Implications include recommendations for effective dissemination of research evidence to health care practitioners and further RCTs in this field, particularly investigating the dissemination of social care research. Trial Registration PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42022378793; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=378793 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR2-10.2196/45684

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Examining the Effectiveness of Social Media for the Dissemination of Research Evidence for Health and Social Care Practitioners: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Roberts-Lewis,

Baxter,

Mein

et al. 2024

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Examining the Effectiveness of Social Media for the Dissemination of Research Evidence for Health and Social Care Practitioners: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (Preprint)

Roberts-Lewis,

Baxter,

Mein

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Social media use has potential to facilitate the rapid dissemination of research evidence to busy health and social care practitioners. OBJECTIVE This study aims to quantitatively synthesize evidence of the between- and within-group effectiveness of social media for dissemination of research evidence to health and social care practitioners. It also compared effectiveness between different social media platforms, formats, and strategies. METHODS We searched electronic databases for articles in English that were published between January 1, 2010, and January 10, 2023, and that evaluated social media interventions for disseminating research evidence to qualified, postregistration health and social care practitioners in measures of reach, engagement, direct dissemination, or impact. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were carried out by at least 2 independent reviewers. Meta-analyses of standardized pooled effects were carried out for between- and within-group effectiveness of social media and comparisons between platforms, formats, and strategies. Certainty of evidence for outcomes was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) framework. RESULTS In total, 50 mixed-quality articles that were heterogeneous in design and outcome were included (n=9, 18% were randomized controlled trials [RCTs]). Reach (measured in number of practitioners, impressions, or post views) was reported in 26 studies. Engagement (measured in likes or post interactions) was evaluated in 21 studies. Direct dissemination (measured in link clicks, article views, downloads, or altmetric attention score) was analyzed in 23 studies (8 RCTs). Impact (measured in citations or measures of thinking and practice) was reported in 13 studies. Included studies almost universally indicated effects in favor of social media interventions, although effect sizes varied. Cumulative evidence indicated moderate certainty of large and moderate between-group effects of social media interventions on direct dissemination (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.88; P=.02) and impact (SMD 0.76; P<.001). After social media interventions, cumulative evidence showed moderate certainty of large within-group effects on reach (SMD 1.99; P<.001), engagement (SMD 3.74; P<.001), and direct dissemination (SMD 0.82; P=.004) and low certainty of a small within-group effect on impacting thinking or practice (SMD 0.45; P=.02). There was also evidence for the effectiveness of using multiple social media platforms (including Twitter, subsequently rebranded X; and Facebook), images (particularly infographics), and intensive social media strategies with frequent, daily posts and involving influential others. No included studies tested the dissemination of research evidence to social care practitioners. CONCLUSIONS Social media was effective for disseminating research evidence to health care practitioners. More intense social media campaigns using specific platforms, formats, and strategies may be more effective than less intense interventions. Implications include recommendations for effective dissemination of research evidence to health care practitioners and further RCTs in this field, particularly investigating the dissemination of social care research. CLINICALTRIAL PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42022378793; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=378793 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT RR2-10.2196/45684

show abstract

Busting MisconSEXions: evaluation of a social media knowledge translation initiative addressing myths about sex

O’Kane,

Goldberg,

Bouchard

et al. 2024

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a critical gap in sex education such that many people lack access to evidence-based and accessible information about sexuality, putting them at risk for endorsing myths about sex and in turn having poorer sexual wellbeing. To address this gap, we developed a novel social media knowledge translation initiative—MisconSEXions—to debunk common myths about sexuality. The goal of this study was twofold. First, to examine whether exposure to MisconSEXions is effective for reducing sexuality myth endorsement. Second, to evaluate the acceptability (participants’ satisfaction with the content), appropriateness (the perceived fit of the content with participants), adoption (participants’ intention to engage with the initiative), and penetration (participants’ perception of the content’s impact on their lives) of MisconSEXions among study participants. We also examined possible group differences in our observed effects by assigned sex, gender modality, and sexual orientation. A large and diverse sample (N = 2,356) of adults completed an online survey and reported on their demographics, sexuality myth endorsement before and after exposure to MisconSEXions content, and the acceptability, appropriateness, adoption, and penetration of the MisconSEXions content. We found that participants’ sexuality myth endorsement was significantly lower following exposure to MisconSEXions content, and this effect held across assigned sex, gender modality, and sexual orientation groups. Regardless of participants’ assigned sex, gender modality, or sexual orientation, MisconSEXions content was reported to be both acceptable and appropriate to people’s lives. Participants reported relatively low levels of adoption, such that they reported reluctance to engage with the content on social media. Additionally, participants reported mixed feelings regarding the impact of the content on their lives (i.e., penetration). Overall, the findings have implications for how sexuality social media knowledge translation initiatives can fill important gaps in providing inclusive and accessible sex education.

show abstract

#PGADFacts: Results from a 12-month knowledge translation campaign on persistent genital arousal disorder/genito-pelvic dysesthesia (PGAD/GPD)

Cited by 3 publications

References 28 publications

Examining the Effectiveness of Social Media for the Dissemination of Research Evidence for Health and Social Care Practitioners: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Examining the Effectiveness of Social Media for the Dissemination of Research Evidence for Health and Social Care Practitioners: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Examining the Effectiveness of Social Media for the Dissemination of Research Evidence for Health and Social Care Practitioners: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (Preprint)

Busting MisconSEXions: evaluation of a social media knowledge translation initiative addressing myths about sex

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About