Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Accepted for/Published in: Journal of Medical Internet Research

Date Submitted: Dec 3, 2019
Date Accepted: Apr 20, 2020

The final, peer-reviewed published version of this preprint can be found here:

Assessing the Credibility and Authenticity of Social Media Content for Applications in Health Communication: Scoping Review

Jenkins EL, Ilicic J, Barklamb AM, McCaffrey TA

Assessing the Credibility and Authenticity of Social Media Content for Applications in Health Communication: Scoping Review

J Med Internet Res 2020;22(7):e17296

DOI: 10.2196/17296

PMID: 32706675

PMCID: 7413282

Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.

Assessing the credibility and authenticity of social media content. Lessons and applications for health communication: a scoping review of the literature.

  • Eva Louise Jenkins; 
  • Jasmina Ilicic; 
  • Amy Merrilyn Barklamb; 
  • Tracy A McCaffrey

ABSTRACT

Background:

Source credibility, and to an extent, authenticity, have been widely studied in marketing and communications, but have not yet been considered in the context of health communication. Social media influencers are becoming key to digital marketing due to their high engagement rates, thus investigation into the factors that impact perceived source and message credibility and authenticity is of interest to inform health communication on social media.

Objective:

To explore the factors that impact credibility (which includes trustworthiness and expertise) or authenticity judgements on social media platforms.

Methods:

Six databases across health and marketing disciplines were searched during March 2019. Inclusion criteria were experimental studies, studies focusing on microblogs, healthy adult populations, and studies focusing on either source credibility or authenticity. Exclusion criteria were studies of those under 18 years old, clinical populations, grey literature, blogs, online reviews, non-English papers, or those not involving participants’ perceptions.

Results:

Overall 22 eligible papers were included, giving a total of 25 research studies. Among these studies, Facebook and Twitter were the most common social media platforms investigated. The most effective communication style differed depending on the social media platform. Factors reported to impact source credibility included: language used online, expertise heuristics, and bandwagon heuristics. No papers were found that assessed authenticity.

Conclusions:

Credibility and authenticity are important concepts studied extensively in the marketing and communications disciplines, however, further research is required in a health context. Instagram is a less-researched platform in comparison to Facebook and Twitter.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Jenkins EL, Ilicic J, Barklamb AM, McCaffrey TA

Assessing the Credibility and Authenticity of Social Media Content for Applications in Health Communication: Scoping Review

J Med Internet Res 2020;22(7):e17296

DOI: 10.2196/17296

PMID: 32706675

PMCID: 7413282

Download PDF


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.