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: Aug 2, 2023
Date Accepted: Apr 16, 2024

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

Reporting of Ethical Considerations in Qualitative Research Utilizing Social Media Data on Public Health Care: Scoping Review

Zhang Y, Fu J, Lai J, Deng S, Guo Z, Zhong C, Tang J, Cao W, Wu Y

Reporting of Ethical Considerations in Qualitative Research Utilizing Social Media Data on Public Health Care: Scoping Review

J Med Internet Res 2024;26:e51496

DOI: 10.2196/51496

PMID: 38758590

PMCID: 11143395

Reporting of Ethical Consideration in Qualitative Research on the Internet Community: Scoping Review

  • Yujie Zhang; 
  • Jiaqi Fu; 
  • Jie Lai; 
  • Shisi Deng; 
  • Zihan Guo; 
  • Chuhan Zhong; 
  • Jianyao Tang; 
  • Wenqiong Cao; 
  • Yanni Wu

ABSTRACT

Background:

The internet community has become a significant source for researchers to conduct qualitative studies analyzing users’ views, attitudes, and experiences about public health. However, few studies have assessed the ethical issues of qualitative research using social media data.

Objective:

This study aims to identify the reportage of ethical considerations in qualitative research of health care utilizing social media data.

Objective:

This study aims to identify the reportage of ethical considerations in qualitative research of health care utilizing social media data.

Methods:

This is a scoping review. All research about mining text from internet community published in peer-reviewed journals from inception to May 31, 2023 were retrieved to evaluate the rates of reporting ethical approval, informed consent, and privacy issues.

Results:

A total of 108 studies about mining text in the internet community were included. Out of these, only 59.3% (64/108) of studies sought ethical approval, and 45.4% (49/108) of those mentioned informed consent, but only 13% (14/108) of studies explicitly obtained informed consent. The majority (11/14, 78%) obtained digital informed consent from participants or administrators, and three (3/14, 21.4%) studies did not describe the method used to obtain informed consent. Notably, 76 of 108 (69.4%) studies contained users’ written content or posts, 68% (52/76) of studies contained verbatim quotes, and 32% (24/76) of studies paraphrased the quotes to prevent traceability. However, 16% (4/24) of studies did not report paraphrasing methods. Moreover, 18.5% (20/108) of studies used aggregated data analysis to protect users’ privacy. Furthermore, the rates of reporting ethical approval were different between different countries (P=.02) and whether contained written content (P<.001).

Conclusions:

The reporting of ethical considerations in qualitative research on social media is widely neglected. A national consensus of ethical considerations such as ethical approval, informed consent, and privacy issues are needed for qualitative research in internet community.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Zhang Y, Fu J, Lai J, Deng S, Guo Z, Zhong C, Tang J, Cao W, Wu Y

Reporting of Ethical Considerations in Qualitative Research Utilizing Social Media Data on Public Health Care: Scoping Review

J Med Internet Res 2024;26:e51496

DOI: 10.2196/51496

PMID: 38758590

PMCID: 11143395

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.