| Literature DB >> 29472174 |
Sheik Mohammad Roushdat Ally Elaheebocus1,2, Mark Weal1, Leanne Morrison3, Lucy Yardley3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Incorporating social media features into digital behavior change interventions (DBCIs) has the potential to contribute positively to their success. However, the lack of clear design principles to describe and guide the use of these features in behavioral interventions limits cross-study comparisons of their uses and effects.Entities:
Keywords: behavior control; behavioral medicine; eHealth; health behavior; social media; systematic review
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29472174 PMCID: PMC5843796 DOI: 10.2196/jmir.8342
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Internet Res ISSN: 1438-8871 Impact factor: 5.428
Figure 1Flow diagram of the studies’ inclusion process.
Breakdown of number of studies by addressed behaviors.
| Addressed behaviors | n (%) |
| Alcohol consumption | 5 (3.7) |
| Diet and nutrition | 7 (5.2) |
| Diet and nutrition + physical activity | 11 (8.2) |
| Diet and nutrition + physical activity + alcohol consumption | 1 (0.7) |
| Physical activity | 38 (28.4) |
| Physical activity + smoking cessation | 1 (0.7) |
| Smoking cessation | 25 (18.7) |
| Weight loss or weight maintenance + diet and nutrition | 3 (2.2) |
| Weight loss or weight maintenance + diet and nutrition + physical activity | 43 (32.1) |
| Total number of studies analyzed | 134 (100.0) |
Figure 2Taxonomy of social media features.
Categories of social media features.
| Number | Category | Description |
| 1 | Identity representation | Used to provide information about an individual and his or her activities to peers and are usually customizable by the participant. This is usually either in the form of user profiles or avatars |
| 2 | Communication | Enable intervention participants to communicate with one another and could be further categorized as many to many (eg, chat rooms), one to one (eg, peer emailing), and one way (eg, thumbs up or likes) |
| 3 | Peer grouping | Grouping of participants based on characteristics such as age, geographical locations, or part of the same intervention arm, while ensuring that they are aware about others in their group and with the possibility to have some form of direct or indirect communication. Groups can consist of a minimum of 2 participants ora OSN-based and non-OSN–based groups with more than 2 individuals |
| 4 | Data sharing | Enable participants of an intervention to share data about their activity, goals, or experience to either or both other participants and nonparticipants |
| 5 | Competition | Designed to introduce a competitive aspect in interventions through the use of features that enable participants to feel motivated while competing against one another (eg, social quiz) |
| 6 | Activity data viewing | Provide access to activity data of peers to participants through either regular updates (feeds and notifications) on a timely basis or enable them to compare their own data with that of their peers (eg, leaderboards) |
| 7 | Online social network (OSN) | The use of an Internet-based platform for enabling social interaction among intervention participants. OSNs can be subcategorized as either Generic and Conventional type (Facebook, mySpace, Twitter), Virtual World (SecondLife), or Purpose Designed (Yahoo Diet Diary, iWell, QuitNet, other intervention-specific proprietary OSNs). OSNs although being considered as a social media feature, usually act as a container for multiple other social media features |
aOSN: online social network.
Studies that included social media features from the different categories.
| SMFa categories | Studies’ references |
| Communication | [ |
| Peer grouping | [ |
| Data sharing | [ |
| Competition | [ |
| Activity data viewing | [ |
| Online social network | [ |
| Identity representation | [ |
aSMF: social media features.
Interventions reported outcomes while including social media features from the different categories.
| Study outcome | Communication, n (%) | Peer grouping, n (%) | Data sharing, n (%) | Competition, n (%) | Activity data viewing, n (%) | Online social network, n (%) | Identity representation, n (%) |
| Studies with positive outcome | 88 (71.0) | 47 (84) | 40 (93) | 20 (77) | 40 (80) | 31 (84) | 34 (87) |
| Studies with neutral outcome | 33 (26.6) | 9 (16) | 2 (5) | 6 (23) | 10 (20) | 6 (16) | 5 (13) |
| Studies with negative outcome | 3 (2.4) | 0 (0) | 1 (2) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
Studies addressing different behaviors that reported positive, neutral, or negative outcomes.
| Studies and their reported outcomes | Communication, n (%) | Peer grouping, n (%) | Data sharing, n (%) | Competition, n (%) | Activity data viewing, n (%) | Online social network, n (%) | Identity Representation, n (%) | |
| Positive | 57 (66) | 31 (79) | a | 17 (74) | 28 (76) | 19 (76) | 22 (81) | |
| Neutral | 26 (30) | 8 (21) | 2 (7) | 6 (26) | 9 (24) | 6 (24) | 5 (19) | |
| Negative | 3 (3) | 0 (0) | 1 (4) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |
| Positive | 44 (71) | 19 (83) | 7 (70) | 15 (75) | 17 (89) | 16 (89) | ||
| Neutral | 16 (26) | 4 (17) | 1 (6) | 3 (30) | 5 (25) | 2 (11) | 2 (11) | |
| Negative | 2 (3) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |
| Positive | 21 (81) | |||||||
| Neutral | 5 (19) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |
| Negative | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |
| Positive | 4 (80) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |||||
| Neutral | 1 (20) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |
| Negative | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |
| Positive | 33 (73) | 12 (80) | 5 (83) | 9 (82) | 11 (85) | 10 (83) | ||
| Neutral | 10 (22) | 3 (20) | 1 (8) | 1 (17) | 2 (18) | 2 (15) | 2 (17) | |
| Negative | 2 (4) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |
aCells with the highest positive values have been indicated in italics.