1. 'Summary of findings' table: health behaviours.
| Any interactive social media intervention compared with non‐interactive social media on health behaviours (RCTs) | ||||||
|
Patient or population: adults Settings: high and high‐middle income countries Intervention: interactive social media Comparison: non‐interactive social media | ||||||
| Outcomes | Absolute effect (95% CI) | Effect estimate (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Physical activity | Adults in the control group had 3770 steps per day | The mean number of steps per day increased by 74 steps for the intervention group (from 32 to 116 more steps) | SMD 0.28 (0.12 to 0.44) | 6250 (29 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1 | Absolute effect calculated using Wan 2017 |
| Diet quality | Adults in the control group consumed an average of 22.7 servings of fruit and vegetables per week. | The participants in the intervention increased their weekly fruit and vegetable intake by 0.35 servings (from 1.25 fewer servings to 1.96 more servings per week. | SMD 0.11 (‐0.25 to 0.47) | 1240 (8 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low2 | Absolute effect calculated using Bantum 2014 |
| Calorie intake | The mean number of calories was 53.75 lower in the intervention group (from 172.48 lower to 44.97 higher | MD ‐53.75 (‐172.48 to 44.97) | 131 (3 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate3 | ||
| Tobacco use | 12.72% of participants in the control group abstained from smoking. | 12.47% of intervention group participants abstained from smoking (from 9.4 to 16.4%). | RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.74, 1.29) | 2433 (4 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate4 | Absolute effect calculated using Ramo 2015 |
| Condom use | The participants in the control group reporting condom use frequency of 3.28 on a scale of 1 (never) to 5 (always). | The intervention group reported condom use frequency 0.34 higher (from 0.51 fewer to 1.17 more). | SMD 0.22 (‐0.33 to 0.76) | 848 (2 RCTs) |
low5 ⊕⊕⊝⊝ |
Absolute effect calculated using Sun 2017 |
| Health screening, medication, vaccination uptake | The mean uptake was 86.8% for the control group. | The mean uptake in the social media group was 2.08% higher (from 1.32% lower to 5.62% higher). | SMD 0.11 (‐0.07, 0.30) | 3016 (8 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate6 | Absolute effect calculated using Horvath 2013 |
| Adverse events | Not assessed | ‐‐ | 0 (0 studies) | ‐‐ | ||
| * The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval;MD: mean difference; RCT: randomised controlled trial; RR: risk ratio; SMD: standardised mean difference | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited; the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect. | ||||||
1. Downgraded by 1 for high heterogeneity (I2 = 84%) and unclear risk of bias.
2. Downgraded by 2 for high heterogeneity (I2 = 86%) and imprecision.
3. Downgraded by 1 for unclear risk of bias.
4. Downgraded by 1 because of high risk of bias.
5. Downgraded by 2 because of high risk of bias and imprecision.
6. Downgraded by 1 because of unclear risks of bias.