Submited on: 28 Jan 2012 04:21:37 PM GMT
Published on: 29 Jan 2012 11:12:10 AM GMT
 
Review of "On Social Media In Health Literacy"
Posted by Dr. Laura O'Grady on 15 Feb 2012 05:45:40 PM GMT

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? No
3 Is this a new and original contribution? No
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? No
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? No
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? No
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? No
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? No
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    The citations in the first paragraph refer to technology use in general. The author uses the term social media, which denotes collaboration and the co-creation of new knowledge. I believe this concept in the context of health care should be the focus of any content used to position and justify it as it is one of the main components of the paper.

     

    In the second paragraph it is identified that the focus will be on heath literacy. In relation to social media and m-health it may have been useful to also include an acknowledgement of a concept known as eHealth literacy. See in particular:

     

    Norman, C. D., & Skinner, H. A. (2006). eHealth Literacy: Essential Skills for Consumer Health in a Networked World. J Med Internet Res, 8(2), e9.

     

    In the section, "Risks of social media and workarounds" the first sentence defines risks in terms of the spread of 'misinformation'. This concept in relation to ehealth has been discussed in the literature for many years, generally using the term "credibility". There is a large body of literature on credibility in relation to technology-based health information. For one example, please see this publication:

     

    O'Grady, L. (2006). Future directions for depicting credibility in health care web sites. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 75(1), 58-65.

     

    In reference to misunderstandings please see the following article for some evidence in how this issue is often corrected by the community itself:

     

    Esquivel, A., Meric-Bernstam, F., & Bernstam, E. V. (2006). Accuracy and self correction of information received from an internet breast cancer list: content analysis. BMJ, 332(7547), 939-942.

     

    "Bad" information is everywhere. This point could have been more strongly made if citations had been provided on how many instances there have been showing patiens have been negatively affected by information they have read on the Internet (and proof it is only the Internet was the source). Please see my credibilty article in IJMI as cited above that briefly discusses this issue.

     

    Regarding the list of organizations in the section, "Risks of social media and workarounds" I think Health on the Net should also be included.

     

    In reference to, "maintainers of social media pages" please see this article as it provides more information about how online communities can be "maintained" by the use of facilitators:

     

    O'Grady, L., Bender, J. L., Urowitz, S., Wiljer, D., & Jadad, A. (2010). Promoting and participating in online health forums: A guide to facilitation and evaluation for health professionals. Journal of Communication in Healthcare, 3(3-4), 246-257.

     

    In the section that states, "A strategy based on ‘shared-audience information sets’ " a further discussion on experiential or anecdotal information such as what is provided in the article reference below may have helped further explain the value of this type of information and provide details on ways in which it can be supported:

     

    O'Grady, L. A., Witteman, H., & Wathen, C. N. (2008). The experiential health information processing model: supporting collaborative web-based patient education. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak, 8(1), 58.

     

    Figures 1 and 2 do not add much value to the premise of the paper.

     

    As the author notes, "This short, non-exhaustive article considers health literacy". This article provides a start but would have benefited greatly from a literature review. I do not believe there is not enough new information in this paper. A fresh or novel perspective on the issue would have strengthened it considerably (i.e. what is it about social media (as opposed to ehealth or web 1.0 that requires more (or less) health literacy?, what is unique about the way social media works in a health care context that can facilitate literacy?).

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I am an expert in health informatics, social media, the credibility of health care content and patient education. I am knowledgeable about issues related to health literacy.

  • How to cite:  O\'Grady L .Review of "On Social Media In Health Literacy"[Review of the article 'On Social Media in Health Literacy ' by Kamel Boulos M].WebmedCentral 2012;3(2):WMCRW001492
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Partly
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Partly
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? Yes
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? No
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? No
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? No
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    1. Though the title of article says 'Social Media' there is very little mention of Social Media in the article. Facebook and Twitter are mentioned briefly, and YouTube mentioned in passing. Most of the article talks about Internet usage in geneeral

     

    2. Insifficient hard data has been provided in the context of Social Media (FB, Myspace, Twitter, YouTube etc) to  justify any sort of interpretation or conclusion with regard to their role in Health Literacy

     

    3. It is more of a view-point article

     

    4. Instead of writing, "The reader is referred to [25-32] for an overview of the different types of social media available today", the author should discuss them


    5. There are too many complex, and complex-compund sentences, often requiring the reader to look at the beginning of the sentence to see where it all started. For example "The risks include spreading misinformation (very rapidly through viral messages and videos/e-WOM—Electronic Word of Mouth and/or through hacked/compromised social media accounts [33]), disseminating biased or incomplete (and thus potentially risky) information—see, for example, [32,34-39], or publishing information that is hard to understand by its intended audience or is presented in such a way that makes misunderstanding a likely possibility (misunderstanding can have serious negative consequences—see, for example, [6])."


    6. Illustration number 1 does not convey any information relevant to the text. Other illustrations are relevant, useful and illustrative


    7. 49 references for the short length of article is excessive. 20 to 25 would be adequate


    8. It is necessary to mention when the author Accessed each Web-based reference.

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:
    Sanyal, S. Effects of cyberworld on the human psych. Royal College of Psychiatrists Mental Health Informatics Special Interest Group Connect. 2006 Feb;17 (6-9). Available at http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/connectfebruary2006.pdf
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    1. Masters in Healthcare Informatics from University of Bath and Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh

    2. Published Essay: Expert Informed Patient (URL: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1v9Jou04EMm8Kf61RBimsE87us3FgO0E4-wOGwdpuyY4/edit

  • How to cite:  Sanyal S .Social Media - Boon or Bane for Health Literacy?[Review of the article 'On Social Media in Health Literacy ' by Kamel Boulos M].WebmedCentral 2012;3(2):WMCRW001466
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
on social media in health literacy
Posted by Dr. SM Kadri on 04 Feb 2012 04:02:03 PM GMT

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Partly
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? No
3 Is this a new and original contribution? No
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? No
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? No
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? Yes
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? Yes
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? No
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? No
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    The heading of article Social Media

    1. It should be elaborated Media is it print or electronic media ?
    2. Here you are refereeing the social media mostly to social net working sites ( FB) and most of the references are IT based
    3. How to control the quality of online material available
    4. What are your recommendations to overcome this problem
    5. You mention in the text , the reader is referred to (25-32) this is not the way you have to discuss the studies not just write refer to the citations 25-32
    6. Any study done on users using mobile apps in low and middle income countries?
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    no logistic flow in the article 

  • How to cite:  Kadri S .on social media in health literacy [Review of the article 'On Social Media in Health Literacy ' by Kamel Boulos M].WebmedCentral 2012;3(2):WMCRW001463
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Leaves you wanting more!
Posted by Prof. Robert Dellavalle on 03 Feb 2012 05:43:01 AM GMT

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Yes
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? No
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? No
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    Great introduction to an emerging filed--leaves you wanting to read more!

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:
    Vance K, Howe W, Dellavalle RP. Social Internet sites as a source of public health information. Dermatologic Clinics, 2009 Apr;27(2):133-6. PMID: 19254656.
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
    1. Vance K, Howe W, Dellavalle RP.  Social Internet sites as a source of public health information.  Dermatologic Clinics, 2009 Apr;27(2):133-6.  PMID: 19254656.
  • How to cite:  Dellavalle R .Leaves you wanting more![Review of the article 'On Social Media in Health Literacy ' by Kamel Boulos M].WebmedCentral 2012;3(2):WMCRW001456
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse