Table 1.

Impact of fast information exchange through social media for different stakeholders within clinical epidemiology

Key stakeholder	Advantages	Disadvantages	Measures to encourage advantages and mitigate the disadvantages
Patient	•Better informed patient-centered health-care choices.	•Receiving health misinformation or even iatrogenic advice. •Discomforting with some interactions (e.g., 'trolls'). •Privacy concerns.	•Stimulate health literacy and critical thinking among patients. •Learn interaction techniques. •Address misinformation by asking questions and provide guidance to reliable sources of information and critical thinking.a •Suggest relevant social media resources (patient associations, patients, and relevant physicians)
Clinician	•Fast access to new findings with clinical relevance. •Possibility to present clinical cases for peer to peer advise.	•Abundance of information and disinformation. •Fast access to poor quality and/or non–peer-reviewed studies.	•Follow key experts in your medical field who are active on social media and relevant experts in adjacent fields. •Follow critical appraisal remarks on studies by other clinicians, clinical epidemiologists, or other experts on ‘ground-breaking’ studies. •Always watch and advocate for privacy of patients when using social media.
Scientist	•Improved citation and dissemination of study results. •Fast access to new information (preprints, publications). •Source for new ideas. •Potential to start and/or participate in relevant discussions of new ideas and results.	•Overload of information and disinformation (i.e., “infoxication”).	•Be active and visible on social media. •Start with a relevant and clear profile. •Link to social media channels of journals related to your publications; react and get involved in relevant messages and discussions. •Follow relevant experts active on social media.

^aFor example: TestingTreatments.org, informedhealthchoices.org, Thatsaclaim.org.