Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 Sep 8;24(9):e37337.
doi: 10.2196/37337.

Development of Principles for Health-Related Information on Social Media: Delphi Study

Emily Denniss  1 , Rebecca Lindberg  1 , Sarah A McNaughton  1
Affiliations
Review

Development of Principles for Health-Related Information on Social Media: Delphi Study

Emily Denniss et al. J Med Internet Res. .

Abstract

Background: Health-related misinformation can be propagated via social media and is a threat to public health. Several quality assessment tools and principles to evaluate health-related information in the public domain exist; however, these were not designed specifically for social media.

Objective: This study aims to develop Principles for Health-related Information on Social Media (PRHISM), which can be used to evaluate the quality of health-related social media content.

Methods: A modified Delphi approach was used to obtain expert consensus on the principles and functions of PRHISM. Health and social media experts were recruited via Twitter, email, and snowballing. A total of 3 surveys were administered between February 2021 and May 2021. The first survey was informed by a literature review and included open-ended questions and items from existing quality assessment tools. Subsequent surveys were informed by the results of the proceeding survey. Consensus was deemed if ≥80% agreement was reached, and items with consensus were considered relevant to include in PRHISM. After the third survey, principles were finalized, and an instruction manual and scoring tool for PRHISM were developed and circulated to expert participants for final feedback.

Results: A total of 34 experts consented to participate, of whom 18 (53%) responded to all 3 Delphi surveys. In total, 13 principles were considered relevant and were included in PRHISM. When the instructions and PRHISM scoring tool were circulated, no objections to the wording of the final principles were received.

Conclusions: A total of 13 quality principles were included in the PRHISM tool, along with a scoring system and implementation tool. The principles promote accessibility, transparency, provision of authoritative and evidence-based information and support for consumers' relationships with health care providers. PRHISM can be used to evaluate the quality of health-related information provided on social media. These principles may also be useful to content creators for developing high-quality health-related social media content and assist consumers in discerning high- and low-quality information.

Keywords: Delphi; assessment tool; credibility; credibility indicator; credible; eHealth; health information; information quality; measurement tool; mobile phone; quality assessment; research tool; social media; web-based information.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart of Delphi process adapted from Mete et al [38]. PRHISM: Principles for Health-related Information on Social Media.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Lambert SD, Loiselle CG. Health information seeking behavior. Qual Health Res. 2007 Oct;17(8):1006–19. doi: 10.1177/1049732307305199.17/8/1006 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hesse BW, Nelson DE, Kreps GL, Croyle RT, Arora NK, Rimer BK, Viswanath K. Trust and sources of health information: the impact of the Internet and its implications for health care providers: findings from the first Health Information National Trends Survey. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(22):2618–24. doi: 10.1001/archinte.165.22.2618.165/22/2618 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Beck F, Richard J, Nguyen-Thanh V, Montagni I, Parizot I, Renahy E. Use of the internet as a health information resource among French young adults: results from a nationally representative survey. J Med Internet Res. 2014 May 13;16(5):e128. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2934. https://www.jmir.org/2014/5/e128/ v16i5e128 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fox S. The social life of health information. Pew Research Center. 2014. Jan 15, [2019-12-21]. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/15/the-social-life-of-heal...
    1. Alduraywish SA, Altamimi LA, Aldhuwayhi RA, AlZamil LR, Alzeghayer LY, Alsaleh FS, Aldakheel FM, Tharkar S. Sources of health information and their impacts on medical knowledge perception among the Saudi Arabian population: cross-sectional study. J Med Internet Res. 2020 Mar 19;22(3):e14414. doi: 10.2196/14414. https://www.jmir.org/2020/3/e14414/ v22i3e14414 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources