Fontaine Guillaume, Maheu-Cadotte Marc-André, Lavallée Andréane, Mailhot Tanya, Rouleau Geneviève, Bouix-Picasso Julien, Bourbonnais Anne
Faculty of Nursing, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Research Center, Montreal Heart Institute, Montréal, QC, Canada.
JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2019 Sep 3;5(3):e14447. doi: 10.2196/14447.
The public's understanding of science can be influential in a wide range of areas related to public health, including policy making and self-care. Through the digital and social media ecosystem, health scientists play a growing role in public science communication (SC).
This review aimed to (1) synthesize the literature on SC initiated by health scientists targeting the public in the digital and social media ecosystem and (2) describe the SC strategies and communication channels used.
This scoping review was based on the Joanna Briggs Institute Methodological Framework. A systematic search was performed in 6 databases (January 2000 to April 2018). Title and abstract screening, full-text review, data charting, and critical appraisal were performed independently by two review authors. Data regarding included studies and communication channels were synthesized descriptively. A typology of SC strategies was developed using a qualitative and inductive method of data synthesis.
Among 960 unique publications identified, 18 met inclusion criteria. A third of publications scored good quality (6/18, 33%), half scored moderate quality (9/18, 50%), and less than a fifth scored low quality (3/18, 16%). Overall, 75 SC strategies used by health scientists were identified. These were grouped into 9 types: content, credibility, engagement, intention, linguistics, planification, presentation, social exchange, and statistics. A total of 5 types of communication channels were identified: social networking platforms (eg, Twitter), content-sharing platforms (eg, YouTube), digital research communities (eg, ResearchGate), personal blogs and websites (eg, WordPress), and social news aggregation and discussion platforms (eg, Reddit).
Evidence suggests that multiple types of SC strategies and communication channels are used by health scientists concurrently. Few empirical studies have been conducted on SC by health scientists in the digital and social media ecosystem. Future studies should examine the appropriateness and effectiveness of SC strategies for improving public health-related outcomes and identify the barriers, facilitators, and ethical considerations inherent to the involvement of health scientists in the digital and social media ecosystem.
公众对科学的理解在与公共卫生相关的广泛领域中具有影响力，包括政策制定和自我保健。通过数字和社交媒体生态系统，健康科学家在公共科学传播（SC）中发挥着越来越重要的作用。
本综述旨在（1）综合关于健康科学家在数字和社交媒体生态系统中针对公众开展的科学传播的文献，以及（2）描述所使用的科学传播策略和沟通渠道。
本范围综述基于乔安娜·布里格斯研究所的方法框架。在6个数据库中进行了系统检索（2000年1月至2018年4月）。由两位综述作者独立进行标题和摘要筛选、全文审查、数据图表制作和批判性评价。对纳入研究和沟通渠道的数据进行了描述性综合。使用定性和归纳性数据综合方法制定了科学传播策略类型学。
在识别出的960篇独特出版物中，18篇符合纳入标准。三分之一的出版物质量良好（6/18，33%），一半质量中等（9/18，50%），不到五分之一质量较低（3/18，16%）。总体而言，识别出健康科学家使用的75种科学传播策略。这些策略分为9种类型：内容、可信度、参与度、意图、语言、规划、呈现、社会交流和统计。共识别出5种沟通渠道：社交网络平台（如推特）、内容分享平台（如YouTube）、数字研究社区（如ResearchGate）、个人博客和网站（如WordPress）以及社会新闻聚合和讨论平台（如Reddit）。
有证据表明，健康科学家同时使用多种类型的科学传播策略和沟通渠道。关于健康科学家在数字和社交媒体生态系统中进行科学传播的实证研究很少。未来的研究应考察科学传播策略在改善公共卫生相关结果方面的适当性和有效性，并确定健康科学家参与数字和社交媒体生态系统所固有的障碍、促进因素和伦理考量。
