Social media use and adolescent oral health: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Social media has revolutionized information sharing, particularly among adolescents who frequently use it for health-related content. However, their use of social media concerning oral health remains unclear. This scoping review aims to map available literature on the use of social media regarding oral health among adolescents. Methods: Following Arksey & O'Malley's framework and PRISMA-SCR guidelines, comprehensive searches were conducted in Medline (Ovid), PubMed, and Scopus databases from January 2013 to December 2024. Reference lists of relevant studies were also reviewed. Two researchers independently screened and extracted relevant data from eligible studies. The data included publication year, authors, country, study design, aims, social media platforms, comparisons, assessed outcomes, and key findings. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize quantifiable aspects and content analysis was employed to define categories and report the key findings. Results: Of 1938 records, 1312 titles and abstracts and 73 full-text articles were screened. Seventeen relevant studies were identified, including 2 reviews and 15 primary studies. These studies included six clinical trials and five cross-sectional studies. Three studies didn't indicate the study design. In addition to social media's effectiveness in improving oral health literacy, behaviors, and outcomes, such as plaque, gingival, and caries indices, the studies reported on patient compliance and sharing treatment-related experiences. Conclusion: This review highlights the growing influence of social media on adolescents' oral health literacy and practices. Further research is necessary to explore adolescents' perspectives on social media use for oral health and develop effective interventions that address the unique needs of this demographic.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".