Emily G Miller1, Amanda L Woodward2, Grace Flinchum3, Jennifer L Young1, Holly K Tabor1,4, Meghan C Halley5. 1. Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 2. Lane Medical Library, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 3. Department of Political Science, Davidson College, Davidson, NC, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. 5. Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. mhalley@stanford.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Social media may be particularly valuable in research in rare genetic diseases because of the low numbers of patients and the rare disease community's robust online presence. The goal of this systematic review was to understand how social media is currently used in rare disease research and the characteristics of the participants in these studies. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of six databases to identify studies published in English between January 2004 and November 2020, of which 120 met inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Most studies were observational (n = 114, 95.0%) and cross-sectional (n = 107, 89.2%), and more than half (n = 69, 57.5%) utilized only surveys. Only 101 rare diseases were included across all studies. Participant demographics, when reported, were predominantly female (70.1% ± 22.5%) and white (85.0% ± 11.0%) adult patients and caregivers. CONCLUSION: Despite its potential benefits in rare disease research, the use of social media is still methodologically limited and the participants reached may not be representative of the rare disease population by gender, race, age, or rare disease type. As scholars explore using social media for rare disease research, careful attention should be paid to representativeness when studying this diverse patient community.
PURPOSE: Social media may be particularly valuable in research in rare genetic diseases because of the low numbers of patients and the rare disease community's robust online presence. The goal of this systematic review was to understand how social media is currently used in rare disease research and the characteristics of the participants in these studies. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of six databases to identify studies published in English between January 2004 and November 2020, of which 120 met inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Most studies were observational (n = 114, 95.0%) and cross-sectional (n = 107, 89.2%), and more than half (n = 69, 57.5%) utilized only surveys. Only 101 rare diseases were included across all studies. Participant demographics, when reported, were predominantly female (70.1% ± 22.5%) and white (85.0% ± 11.0%) adult patients and caregivers. CONCLUSION: Despite its potential benefits in rare disease research, the use of social media is still methodologically limited and the participants reached may not be representative of the rare disease population by gender, race, age, or rare disease type. As scholars explore using social media for rare disease research, careful attention should be paid to representativeness when studying this diverse patient community.
Authors: Andrew M Peterson; Dorina Kallogjeri; Edward Spitznagel; Murali M Chakinala; John S Schneider; Jay F Piccirillo Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2020-11-01 Impact factor: 6.223
Authors: Dirkjan Kauw; Han Repping-Wuts; Alida Noordzij; Nike Stikkelbroeck; Ad Hermus; Marjan Faber Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2015-02-25 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Karen Albright; Tarik Walker; Susan Baird; Linda Eres; Tara Farnsworth; Kaitlin Fier; Dolly Kervitsky; Marjorie Korn; David J Lederer; Mark McCormick; John F Steiner; Thomas Vierzba; Frederick S Wamboldt; Jeffrey J Swigris Journal: BMC Pulm Med Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 3.317
Authors: Meghan C Halley; Jennifer L Young; Liliana Fernandez; Jennefer N Kohler; Jonathan A Bernstein; Matthew T Wheeler; Holly K Tabor Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2022-01-03 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: Deanna J Attai; Matthew S Katz; Elani Streja; Jui-Ting Hsiung; Maria V Marroquin; Beverly A Zavaleta; Larissa Nekhlyudov Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2022-02-03 Impact factor: 4.442