解决社交媒体上的误导性医疗信息:对当前干预措施的范围审查。

IF 7.6 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Emma Grundtvig Gram, Ray Moynihan, Tessa Copp, Patti Shih, Loai Albarqouni, Elie Akl, Courtney Smith, Leah Hardiman, Brooke Nickel
{"title":"解决社交媒体上的误导性医疗信息:对当前干预措施的范围审查。","authors":"Emma Grundtvig Gram, Ray Moynihan, Tessa Copp, Patti Shih, Loai Albarqouni, Elie Akl, Courtney Smith, Leah Hardiman, Brooke Nickel","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2025-113704","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Misleading information about medical products on social media may cause overuse.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Explore interventions targeting the problem of misleading medical information and marketing on social media, with a focus on preventing medical overuse including overdiagnosis.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>We included peer-reviewed studies with original data on an intervention targeting misleading medical information on social media and governmental/institutional responses with and without evaluation. We excluded responses relating to COVID-19.</p><p><strong>Sources of evidence: </strong>four electronic databases: MEDLINE/PubMed, PsycINFO, Academic Search Complete and Web of Science, and searches of grey literature on Google and Google Scholar. Search date: 9 June 2025.</p><p><strong>Data charting: </strong>We used prespecified data forms populated in duplicate by two reviewers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 27 peer-reviewed articles and 25 organisational and governmental responses (grey literature). 20 (74%) of the peer-reviewed interventions targeted the consumer to enhance 'media literacy', support decision-making or warn about misinformation trends. Approaches included education, such as videos or information materials, to improve detection of misinformation, as well as correcting misinformation and rebutting claims. Only two (7.4%) of the peer-reviewed approaches were sensitive to the problem of medical overuse: a risk-of-deception tool and an informed decision-making service. The grey literature about government and organisational responses chiefly comprised general advertising regulations and other educational resources for consumers to identify and navigate misinformation. The advertising regulations ranged from self-regulatory codes of practice to mandatory regulations, requiring pre-approval of social media marketing material. Most regulations stated advertising should be truthful, presenting both benefits and harms and not be misleading. Most of the grey literature (64%) was sensitive to medical overuse, though none referred explicitly to the problem.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Current efforts to address misleading medical marketing on social media often overlook the critical issue of medical overuse and fail to provide sufficient consumer protections in this rapidly evolving digital landscape of social media, such as the speed of dissemination, reach and the role of third-party advertising. These gaps in research, regulation and practice present significant opportunities to strengthen evidence-based policies and public health responses. TRIAL REGISTRATION DETAILS: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/2NJSH.</p>","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Addressing misleading medical information on social media: a scoping review of current interventions.\",\"authors\":\"Emma Grundtvig Gram, Ray Moynihan, Tessa Copp, Patti Shih, Loai Albarqouni, Elie Akl, Courtney Smith, Leah Hardiman, Brooke Nickel\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjebm-2025-113704\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Misleading information about medical products on social media may cause overuse.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Explore interventions targeting the problem of misleading medical information and marketing on social media, with a focus on preventing medical overuse including overdiagnosis.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>We included peer-reviewed studies with original data on an intervention targeting misleading medical information on social media and governmental/institutional responses with and without evaluation. We excluded responses relating to COVID-19.</p><p><strong>Sources of evidence: </strong>four electronic databases: MEDLINE/PubMed, PsycINFO, Academic Search Complete and Web of Science, and searches of grey literature on Google and Google Scholar. Search date: 9 June 2025.</p><p><strong>Data charting: </strong>We used prespecified data forms populated in duplicate by two reviewers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 27 peer-reviewed articles and 25 organisational and governmental responses (grey literature). 20 (74%) of the peer-reviewed interventions targeted the consumer to enhance 'media literacy', support decision-making or warn about misinformation trends. Approaches included education, such as videos or information materials, to improve detection of misinformation, as well as correcting misinformation and rebutting claims. Only two (7.4%) of the peer-reviewed approaches were sensitive to the problem of medical overuse: a risk-of-deception tool and an informed decision-making service. The grey literature about government and organisational responses chiefly comprised general advertising regulations and other educational resources for consumers to identify and navigate misinformation. The advertising regulations ranged from self-regulatory codes of practice to mandatory regulations, requiring pre-approval of social media marketing material. Most regulations stated advertising should be truthful, presenting both benefits and harms and not be misleading. Most of the grey literature (64%) was sensitive to medical overuse, though none referred explicitly to the problem.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Current efforts to address misleading medical marketing on social media often overlook the critical issue of medical overuse and fail to provide sufficient consumer protections in this rapidly evolving digital landscape of social media, such as the speed of dissemination, reach and the role of third-party advertising. These gaps in research, regulation and practice present significant opportunities to strengthen evidence-based policies and public health responses. TRIAL REGISTRATION DETAILS: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/2NJSH.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9059,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2025-113704\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2025-113704","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:社交媒体上关于医疗产品的误导性信息可能导致过度使用。目的:探索针对社交媒体上误导性医疗信息和营销问题的干预措施,重点是防止医疗过度使用,包括过度诊断。入选标准:我们纳入了同行评议的研究,这些研究具有针对社交媒体上误导性医疗信息的干预措施的原始数据,以及有或没有评估的政府/机构反应。我们排除了与COVID-19相关的回复。证据来源:四个电子数据库:MEDLINE/PubMed, PsycINFO, Academic Search Complete和Web of Science,以及谷歌和谷歌Scholar上的灰色文献搜索。检索日期:2025年6月9日。数据图表:我们使用预先指定的数据表格,由两个审阅者填写一式两份。结果:我们确定了27篇同行评议的文章和25篇组织和政府的回应(灰色文献)。同行评议的干预措施中有20项(74%)针对消费者提高“媒体素养”、支持决策或警告错误信息趋势。方法包括教育,如视频或信息材料,以提高对错误信息的发现,以及纠正错误信息和反驳主张。只有两种(7.4%)同行评议的方法对医疗过度使用问题敏感:欺骗风险工具和知情决策服务。关于政府和组织回应的灰色文献主要包括一般广告法规和其他教育资源,以帮助消费者识别和导航错误信息。广告法规的范围从自我监管的行为准则到强制性法规,要求预先批准社交媒体营销材料。大多数法规规定,广告应该是真实的,既展示好处也展示坏处,不能误导人。大多数灰色文献(64%)对医疗过度使用敏感,尽管没有明确提到这个问题。结论:目前解决社交媒体上误导性医疗营销的努力往往忽视了医疗过度使用的关键问题,并且未能在社交媒体快速发展的数字环境中提供足够的消费者保护,例如传播速度、覆盖范围和第三方广告的作用。研究、监管和实践方面的这些差距为加强循证政策和公共卫生对策提供了重要机会。试验注册详情:https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/2NJSH。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Addressing misleading medical information on social media: a scoping review of current interventions.

Background: Misleading information about medical products on social media may cause overuse.

Objectives: Explore interventions targeting the problem of misleading medical information and marketing on social media, with a focus on preventing medical overuse including overdiagnosis.

Eligibility criteria: We included peer-reviewed studies with original data on an intervention targeting misleading medical information on social media and governmental/institutional responses with and without evaluation. We excluded responses relating to COVID-19.

Sources of evidence: four electronic databases: MEDLINE/PubMed, PsycINFO, Academic Search Complete and Web of Science, and searches of grey literature on Google and Google Scholar. Search date: 9 June 2025.

Data charting: We used prespecified data forms populated in duplicate by two reviewers.

Results: We identified 27 peer-reviewed articles and 25 organisational and governmental responses (grey literature). 20 (74%) of the peer-reviewed interventions targeted the consumer to enhance 'media literacy', support decision-making or warn about misinformation trends. Approaches included education, such as videos or information materials, to improve detection of misinformation, as well as correcting misinformation and rebutting claims. Only two (7.4%) of the peer-reviewed approaches were sensitive to the problem of medical overuse: a risk-of-deception tool and an informed decision-making service. The grey literature about government and organisational responses chiefly comprised general advertising regulations and other educational resources for consumers to identify and navigate misinformation. The advertising regulations ranged from self-regulatory codes of practice to mandatory regulations, requiring pre-approval of social media marketing material. Most regulations stated advertising should be truthful, presenting both benefits and harms and not be misleading. Most of the grey literature (64%) was sensitive to medical overuse, though none referred explicitly to the problem.

Conclusions: Current efforts to address misleading medical marketing on social media often overlook the critical issue of medical overuse and fail to provide sufficient consumer protections in this rapidly evolving digital landscape of social media, such as the speed of dissemination, reach and the role of third-party advertising. These gaps in research, regulation and practice present significant opportunities to strengthen evidence-based policies and public health responses. TRIAL REGISTRATION DETAILS: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/2NJSH.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine
BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
3.40%
发文量
48
期刊介绍: BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine (BMJ EBM) publishes original evidence-based research, insights and opinions on what matters for health care. We focus on the tools, methods, and concepts that are basic and central to practising evidence-based medicine and deliver relevant, trustworthy and impactful evidence. BMJ EBM is a Plan S compliant Transformative Journal and adheres to the highest possible industry standards for editorial policies and publication ethics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信