State of the Science ReviewEbola virus disease and social media: A systematic review
Section snippets
Protocol
We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Checklist in our review process.10 The first author (ICHF) designed the systematic review and codesigned the data extraction spreadsheet with author CHD. Detailed instructions of the review procedures were communicated by ICHF to his junior coauthors (CHD, KCF, KRS, PLT, and ACH) via e-mail. The Online Supplementary Materials for this systematic review are available online at //healthdata.engr.uga.edu/static/publications/
Social media platforms
A total of 12 research articles were included in this systematic review (Fig 1).12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 Seven analyzed Twitter data (Table 1),12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 of which 1 also analyzed Weibo data;12 1 analyzed Facebook data (Supplementary Table S1);13 3 studied YouTube (Supplementary Table S2);22, 23, 24 and 1 compared 2 image-sharing platforms, Instagram and Flickr (Supplementary Table S3).25
In addition, relevant data were also extracted from 4 letters to the
Statement of principal findings
A total of 12 articles were included in this systematic review of scientific literature on social media research pertaining to the 2014-2015 Ebola virus disease epidemic in West Africa and associated cases in other countries. Seven presented Twitter data analysis (of which 1 also analyzed Weibo); 1 was on Facebook; 3 were on YouTube; and 1 was on Instagram and Flickr.
Uneven landscape of public health social media research
Our results reflect the uneven landscape of public health-related social media research, using Ebola virus disease as a case
Conclusions
During the 2014-2015 Ebola virus disease epidemic, public health agencies, news media, and individual users utilized social media to extensively communicate about the disease. For this systematic review, we identified 7 Ebola virus disease-related studies on Twitter, 1 of which also studied Weibo, 1 on Facebook, 3 on YouTube, and 1 on Instagram and Flickr. We summarized their research questions, study designs, data collection methods, and analytic methods. None of the included studies reported
Acknowledgment
The authors thank Juwon Park who read the Korean article and confirmed that it did not meet our inclusion criteria and should be excluded. The authors also thank Lisa Briseno, Keri Lubell, Rossmary Marquez, Martin I. Meltzer, Laura Pechta, and Belinda Smith for helpful discussion, as well as Corey Basch for clarifying details of her article via e-mail.
References (44)
- et al.
Social media use in chronic disease: a systematic review and novel taxonomy
Am J Med
(2015) - et al.
Ebola and the social media
Lancet
(2014) Emergent health risks and audience information engagement on social media
Am J Infect Control
(2016)- et al.
Detecting themes of public concern: a text mining analysis of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Ebola live Twitter chat
Am J Infect Control
(2015) - et al.
What can we learn about the Ebola outbreak from tweets?
Am J Infect Control
(2015) - et al.
The content of social media's shared images about Ebola: a retrospective study
Public Health
(2015) - et al.
What makes people talk about Ebola on social media? A retrospective analysis of Twitter use
Travel Med Infect Dis
(2015) - et al.
Dissemination of “misleading” information on social media during the 2014 Ebola epidemic: an area of concern
Travel Med Infect Dis
(2015) - et al.
On pins and needles: how vaccines are portrayed on Pinterest
Vaccine
(2015) - et al.
Digital disease detection—harnessing the Web for public health surveillance
N Engl J Med
(2009)
Digital epidemiology
PLoS Comput Biol
Using social media for actionable disease surveillance and outbreak management: a systematic literature review
PLoS ONE
The use of social media in public health surveillance
Western Pac Surveill Response J
A new dimension of health care: systematic review of the uses, benefits, and limitations of social media for health communication
J Med Internet Res
Social media and suicide prevention: a systematic review
Early Interv Psychiatry
The medium and the message of Ebola
Lancet
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement
PLoS Med
Social media: an ill-defined phenomenon
Social media's initial reaction to information and misinformation on Ebola, August 2014: facts and rumors
Public Health Rep
The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions
J Epidemiol Community Health
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme qualitative research checklist
Communicating Ebola through social media and electronic news media outlets: a cross-sectional study
Health Informatics J
Cited by (86)
The one with the rumour: COVID-19-related conversations on Pakistani Twitter
2023, Public HealthCan “YouTube” help healthcare workers for learning accurate donning and doffing of personal protective equipments?
2022, Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiologia ClinicaUnderstanding scholar-trajectories across scientific periodicals
2024, Scientific ReportsExploring communication by public health leaders and organizations during the pandemic: a content analysis of COVID-related tweets
2023, Canadian Journal of Public Health
CHD, KCF, KRS, and P-LT contributed equally as co-second authors.
Isaac Chun-Hai Fung receives salary support from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (15IPA1509134). This systematic review is not part of his CDC-supported research. CDC has no role in its study design, data analysis, writing or its submission for publication. The opinions expressed in this article do not represent the official positions of the CDC, or the United States Government.
ICHF conceived, designed, and led the study. CHD, KCF, KRS, and AH searched the bibliographic databases and did the initial screening of abstracts. CHD, KCF, KRS, and PLT screened the full text of the articles and decided on inclusion or exclusion. They also extracted data and assessed the quality of the included studies. ICHF made the final decision on the inclusion/exclusion, data extraction, and quality assessment of the studies. ICHF wrote the first draft of the manuscript. MG, KWF, and ZTHT provided intellectual input and critically edited the manuscript. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript for submission.
Conflicts of Interest: None to report.