Experiences and Views of Young People and Health Care Professionals of Using Social Media to Self-Manage Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: Thematic Synthesis of Qualitative Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Social media have shown the potential to support type 1 diabetes self-management by providing informational, emotional, and peer-to-peer support. However, the perceptions of young people and health care professionals' (HCPs) toward the use of social media for type 1 diabetes self-management have not been systematically reviewed. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to explore and summarize the experiences and views of young people with type 1 diabetes and their HCPs on using social media for self-management across qualitative findings. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL from 2012 to 2023 using Medical Subject Heading terms and text words related to type 1 diabetes and social media. We screened and selected the studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. We quality appraised and characterized the included studies and conducted a thematic synthesis. RESULTS: We included 11 studies in our synthesis. A total of 9 of them were qualitative and 2 were mixed methods studies. Ten focused on young people with type 1 diabetes and 1 on HCPs. All used content analysis and were of moderate to high quality. Thirteen descriptive themes were yielded by our thematic synthesis, contributing to five analytic themes: (1) differences in how young people interact with social media, (2) characteristics of social media platforms that influence their use and uptake for type 1 diabetes self-management, (3) social media as a source of information, (4) impact on young people's coping and emotional well-being, and (5) impact on support from and relationships with HCPs and services. CONCLUSIONS: The synthesis suggests that we should consider leveraging social media's peer support capabilities to augment the traditional services for young people with type 1 diabetes. However, the patients may have privacy concerns about HCPs' involvement in their online activities. This warrants an update of existing guidelines to help young people use social media safely for self-managing their diabetes.
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 | 0.057 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".