Social Media for ImpLementing Evidence (SMILE): Conceptual Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Social media has become widely used by individual researchers and professional organizations to translate research evidence into health care practice. Despite its increasing popularity, few social media initiatives consider the theoretical perspectives of how social media works as a knowledge translation strategy to affect research use. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this paper is to propose a conceptual framework to understand how social media works as a knowledge translation strategy for health care providers, policy makers, and patients to inform their health care decision-making. METHODS: We developed this framework using an integrative approach that first involved reviewing 5 long-standing social media initiatives. We then drafted the initial framework using a deductive approach by referring to 5 theories on social media studies and knowledge translation. A total of 58 empirical studies on factors that influenced the use of social media and its messages and strategies for promoting the use of research evidence via social media were further integrated to substantiate and fine-tune our initial framework. Through an iterative process, we developed the Social Media for ImpLementing Evidence (SMILE) framework. RESULTS: The SMILE framework has six key constructs: developers, messages and delivery strategies, recipients, context, triggers, and outcomes. For social media to effectively enable recipients to use research evidence in their decision-making, the framework proposes that social media content developers respond to target recipients' needs and context and develop relevant messages and appropriate delivery strategies. The recipients' use of social media messages is influenced by the virtual-technical, individual, organizational, and system contexts and can be activated by three types of triggers: sparks, facilitators, and signals. CONCLUSIONS: The SMILE framework maps the factors that are hypothesized to influence the use of social media messages by recipients and offers a heuristic device for social media content developers to create interventions for promoting the use of evidence in health care decision-making. Empirical studies are now needed to test the propositions of this framework.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.115 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.033 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".