Abstract:Background: Social media use has potential to facilitate the rapid dissemination of research evidence to busy health and social care practitioners. Objective: This study aims to quantitatively synthesize evidence of the between- and within-group effectiveness of social media for dissemination of research evidence to health and social care practitioners. It also compared effectiveness between different social media platforms, formats, and strategies. Methods: We searched electronic databases for articles in English that were published between January 1, 2010, and January 10, 2023, and that evaluated social media interventions for disseminating research evidence to qualified, postregistration health and social care practitioners in measures of reach, engagement, direct dissemination, or impact. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were carried out by at least 2 independent reviewers. Meta-analyses of standardized pooled effects were carried out for between- and within-group effectiveness of social media and comparisons between platforms, formats, and strategies. Certainty of evidence for outcomes was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) framework. Results: In total, 50 mixed-quality articles that were heterogeneous in design and outcome were included (n=9, 18% were randomized controlled trials [RCTs]). Reach (measured in number of practitioners, impressions, or post views) was reported in 26 studies. Engagement (measured in likes or post interactions) was evaluated in 21 studies. Direct dissemination (measured in link clicks, article views, downloads, or altmetric attention score) was analyzed in 23 studies (8 RCTs). Impact (measured in citations or measures of thinking and practice) was reported in 13 studies. Included studies almost universally indicated effects in favor of social media interventions, although effect sizes varied. Cumulative evidence indicated moderate certainty of large and moderate between-group effects of social media interventions on direct dissemination (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.88; P =.02) and impact (SMD 0.76; P <.001). After social media interventions, cumulative evidence showed moderate certainty of large within-group effects on reach (SMD 1.99; P <.001), engagement (SMD 3.74; P <.001), and direct dissemination (SMD 0.82; P =.004) and low certainty of a small within-group effect on impacting thinking or practice (SMD 0.45; P =.02). There was also evidence for the effectiveness of using multiple social media platforms (including Twitter, subsequently rebranded X; and Facebook), images (particularly infographics), and intensive social media strategies with frequent, daily posts and involving influential others. No included studies tested the dissemination of research evidence to social care practitioners. Conclusions: Social media was effective for disseminating research evidence to health care practitioners. More intense social media campaigns using specific platforms, formats, and strategies may be more effective than less intense interventions. Implications include recommendations for effective dissemination of research evidence to health care practitioners and further RCTs in this field, particularly investigating the dissemination of social care research. Trial Registration: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42022378793; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=378793

Efficient searching for NICE Public Health Guidelines: would using fewer sources still find the evidence?

A review of the quantitative effectiveness evidence synthesis methods used in public health intervention guidelines

The contribution of databases to the results of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study

Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study

Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta‐analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources

How much searching is enough? Comprehensive versus optimal retrieval for technology assessments

Increasing the efficiency of study selection for systematic reviews using prioritization tools and a single-screening approach

Efficacy of searching in biomedical databases beyond MEDLINE in identifying randomised controlled trials on hyperbaric oxygen treatment

An exploration of how developers use qualitative evidence: content analysis and critical appraisal of guidelines

Methodological components and quality of evidence summaries: a scoping review protocol.

Methodological approaches for developing, reporting, and assessing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines: a systematic survey

An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies

The optimal approach for retrieving systematic reviews was achieved when searching MEDLINE and Epistemonikos in addition to reference checking: a methodological validation study

Age-related references in national public health, technology appraisal and clinical guidelines and guidance: documentary analysis

Which strategies support the effective use of clinical practice guidelines and clinical quality registry data to inform health service delivery? A systematic review

Almost half of references in reports on new and emerging nondrug health technologies are grey literature

A one stop shop for cost-effectiveness evidence? Recommendations for improving Disease Control Priorities

Examining the Effectiveness of Social Media for the Dissemination of Research Evidence for Health and Social Care Practitioners: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Clinical Practice Guidelines for Hypertension: Evaluation of Quality Using the AGREE II Instrument

Characteristics of the sources, evaluation, and grading of the certainty of evidence in systematic reviews in public health: A methodological study

The NICE search filters for treating and managing COVID-19: validation in MEDLINE and Embase (Ovid)