Search

Background Social media has been widely used for health-related purposes, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Previous reviews have summarized social media uses for a specific health purpose such as health interventions, health campaigns, medical education, and disease outbreak surveillance. The most recent comprehensive review of social media uses for health purposes, however, was conducted in 2013. A systematic review that covers various health purposes is needed to reveal the new usages and research gaps that emerge in recent years. Objective This study aimed to provide a systematic review of social media uses for health purposes that have been identified in previous studies. Methods The researchers searched for peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2006 and 2020 in 12 databases covering medicine, public health, and social science. After coding the articles in terms of publication year, journal area, country, method, social media platform, and social media use for health purposes, the researchers provided a review of social media use for health purposes identified in these articles. Results This study summarized 10 social media uses for various health purposes by health institutions, health researchers and practitioners, and the public. Conclusions Social media can be used for various health purposes. Several new usages have emerged since 2013 including advancing health research and practice, social mobilization, and facilitating offline health-related services and events. Research gaps exist regarding advancing strategic use of social media based on audience segmentation, evaluating the impact of social media in health interventions, understanding the impact of health identity development, and addressing privacy concerns.

Active participation of stakeholders in health research practice is important to generate societal impact of outcomes, as innovations will more likely be implemented and disseminated in clinical practice. To foster a co-creative process, numerous frameworks and tools are available. As they originate from different professions, it is not evident that health researchers are aware of these tools, or able to select and use them in a meaningful way. This article describes the bottom-up development process of a compass and presents the final outcome. This Co-creation Impact Compass combines a well-known business model with tools from design thinking that promote active participation by all relevant stakeholders. It aims to support healthcare researchers to select helpful and valid co-creation tools for the right purpose and at the right moment. Using the Co-creation Impact Compass might increase the researchers' understanding of the value of co-creation, and it provides help to engage stakeholders in all phases of a research project.

BackgroundIncreasingly, health researchers must demonstrate the impact and real-life applications of their research. We investigated how health researchers with expertise in knowledge translation report research translation activities and impact on their curriculum vitae (CV).MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey of health researchers with expertise in knowledge translation as we anticipated best practices in CV reporting from this specialized group. Our survey asked participants about their reporting of research translation and impact activities on their CVs, intention to report, and barriers and facilitators to reporting such activities on their CVs. We calculated univariate descriptive statistics for all quantitative data. Linear regression models determined predictors of researchers’ intention to report research translation and impact activities on their CVs. We analyzed open-ended qualitative responses using content analysis.ResultsOne hundred and fifty-three health researchers responded to the survey (response rate = 29%). Most respondents were Canadian, were female, and had a doctoral degree. Eighty-two percent indicated they reported at least one research translation and/or impact indicator on their CVs. Of those, health researchers commonly reported the following: advisory/regulatory committee membership related to research program (83%), research translation award(s) (61%), and academic performance assessments (59%). Researchers least commonly indicated the following: citation metric scores (31%), summaries of impact (21%), and requests to use research materials and/or products (19%). Fewer than half of the health researchers intended to report knowledge translation (43%) and impact (33%) on their CVs. Strong beliefs about capabilities and consequences of reporting research translation and/or impact were significant predictors of intention. Main barriers were as follows: CV templates do not include research translation and impact activities, participants perceived employers do not value research translation and impact activities, and lack of metrics to evaluate research translation and impact. Ninety-six percent were unaware of a CV template formatted to include research translation and/or impact reporting.ConclusionsKnowledge translation and impact indicators on the CV are inconsistently reported by our sample of health researchers. Modifiable barriers should be addressed to support more consistent reporting of such activities, including providing a CV template that includes research translation and impact as well as clear metrics to quantify them.

Background: Acquiring the theoretical and practical knowhow of conducting patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is not part of the traditional curriculum of researchers. Zuyd University of Applied Sciences and Huis voor de Zorg, a regional umbrella patient organization, therefore started a 1.5-year coaching programme. Objective: To establish a community of practice by developing a PPI coaching programme for senior and junior health services researchers of Zuyd University. The context consisted of research projects conducted by the participants. Methods: A participatory action research methodology. Data were collected from reports of thematic group meetings and individual sessions with participants, field notes and regular reflection meetings with the project team. Data were analysed by reflexive deliberation. Findings: The programme comprised a kick-off meeting (52 attendees), followed by 7 group meetings with 11 junior and 9 senior researchers. The project team constructed a serious game based on the concept of the participation ladder. Questions and concerns differed for junior and senior researchers, and separate tailored meetings were organized for both groups. Between group meetings, participants received individual assignments. Group meetings were accompanied by individual coaching sessions to provide tailor-made feedback. The programme concluded with a combined meeting with all stakeholders. Conclusion: Building a community of PPI practice through action research facilitates the development of a coaching programme that fosters social learning, empowerment and the development of a shared identity concerning PPI. The role and responsibilities of senior researchers should be distinguished from those of junior researchers.