A Neoteric Approach toward Social Media in Public Health Informatics: A Narrative Review of Current Trends and Future Directions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Social media has become more popular in the last few years. During the last decade, it has been used in public health development and healthcare settings to promote healthier lifestyles. Given its important role in today's culture, it is necessary to understand its current and future trends in public health. The use of social media is growing in the public health field. Evidence has shown that it can be used as a tool for research, designing and implementing health campaigns, messaging, and health promotion. In addition, it has influenced how researchers present and disseminate their research. Social media integration with Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Generative Pre-trained transformers (GPT) can have a big impact and offer an innovative approach to tackle the problems and difficulties in health informatics. Some public health and healthcare sectors are using AI and GPT integration for medical diagnosis, medical imaging, medical informatics, medical education, and medical informatics. These innovations might improve patient participation, individualized assistance, and care experiences. Social media will keep growing and evolving, and it has the potential to help close public health gaps across different cultures and improve population health.

 

This is an interesting piece.

I checked the previous submission.

In the new version authors answered to all the criticism

I only suggest to rewrite the abstract in a more effective form better summarizing the sections

Author Response

This is an interesting piece.

We thank the review with our utmost appreciation

I checked the previous submission.

In the new version authors answered to all the criticism

We again pay our thanks to the reviewer, since we worked hard for the newer submission.

I only suggest to rewrite the abstract in a more effective form better summarizing the sections

We thank the reviewer for the encouragement and time given for the previous version. The abstract has been taken care of with a more structured and concise explanation of sections.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. What is the reference of figure 1?

2. the main goal of research was describe the litertaure search undertaken and the findings 88 from the past five years in the developments that have been made in the public helath 89 informatics, and I guess you coverd topic but I thin that you can add more relevant references.

3. Methods part has not any references about narrative review that is your main method.

4. Table 1 reference?

5. Fagure 2 reference?

6. In section '4.6 Social media, AI, GPT, and Metaverse models for public health informatics', please explain some real-time model related to public health informatics that I believe you can find some of them in HuggingFace or other open source resources.

7. please read again your limitations, Are they really limitations for your paper?

Author Response

What is the reference of Figure 1?

We thank the reviewer for asking this. We have created Figure 1 already giving explanations in the text about the social media use in public health and explanation for its potential implications as a continual process in public health and health informatics.

2. the main goal of the research was to describe the literature search undertaken and the findings 88 from the past five years in the developments that have been made in the public health 89 informatics, and I guess you covered the topic but I think that you can add more relevant references.

We sincerely appreciate and express our gratitude to the reviewer for dedicating their time and providing us with valuable feedback on these specific details. Furthermore, we express our genuine gratitude to the reviewer for their valuable suggestions and profound understanding. However, there is a constraint on the number of words that can be used. The inclusion of additional studies would surpass the word limit and page constraints and would not align with the criteria for a review article as specified by the journal. 

 

3. Methods part has not any references about narrative review that is your main method.

We thank the reviewer for the time to comment on this, but narrative reviews can manifest in various configurations and structures. They are not required to adhere to any particular guideline or standard. A narrative literature review serves as an initial stage for expanding upon existing research in the field. Our methods section explains the search strategy, literature and database searched, search terms and type of literature searched. This is the standard format for any review methods section, for which references are not mentioned. We have also mentioned the inclusion and exclusion criteria.  

4. Table 1 reference?

We thank the reviewer for the time and feedback. We have synthesized the information of current public health informatics on social media platforms as the essential systems and structure, such as data and transmission standards, transfer protocols, and data management protocols. It is undeniable that the utilization of social media is an expanding phenomenon that will persistently develop in the coming years. Table 1 presents the latest patterns in the utilization of social media in the field of public health. The adoption of this interdisciplinary practice relies on the prevalence of public health professionals, which appears to be futuristic and innovative.

 

5. Figure 2 reference?

We thank the reviewer for the time and feedback. We have created Figure 2 in the context of health behavior change pertaining to social media and public health. One of the factors influencing health promotion is the growing inclination to search for information on social media or engage in health-information-seeking behaviors, driven by the perceived benefits Health behavior is influenced by personal, interpersonal, and environmental factors, and plays a significant role in determining the actions and habits of individuals or communities. When social media is effectively employed as a crucial tool in shaping behavior, it facilitates the acquisition of knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs regarding health practices, leading to the adoption of healthier behaviors.

6. In section '4.6 Social media, AI, GPT, and Metaverse models for public health informatics', please explain some real-time models related to public health informatics that I believe you can find some of them in HuggingFace or other open source resources.

We sincerely appreciate and express our gratitude to the reviewer for dedicating their time and providing us with valuable feedback on these specific details. Furthermore, we express our genuine gratitude to the reviewer for their valuable suggestions and profound understanding. However, there is a constraint on the number of words allowed. Including additional studies would surpass the word limit and page count, and would not align with the criteria for a review article as specified by the journal. More research and implications are explained in the later section for a future systematic review to involve other models in public health.

7. please read again your limitations, Are they really limitations for your paper?

We do really appreciate the reviewer for the valuable input. Since it is not a systematic review research article without any structured systematic review guidelines, we also imply for a later comprehensive research methodology with the incorporation of any study design. This can range anything form a broader systematic review or meta-analysis to a cross sectional, pre-posttest, or an experimental design to test different hypotheses that can be derived from our review.  

 

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all of my concerns, and the quality of information-2948875-peer-review-v1 “A neoteric approach toward social media in public health informatics: Current trends and future directions” has been substantially improved. 

My remarks are as follows:

The role of the "Discussion" section is unclear. Please add introductory and final paragraphs to explain the section's purpose, or consider integrating its content with one of the two previous sections.

Editing is needed to avoid some repetitions:

“The study subgroups studied…”.

“Further investigation is required to fully investigate…”.

Proofreading is also necessary.

 

In my opinion, the manuscript meets the requirements of the MDPI Information Journal. Therefore, my recommendation is to “Accept after minor revision”.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Editing is needed to avoid some repetitions.

Proofreading is also necessary.

 

Author Response

The authors have addressed all of my concerns, and the quality of information-2948875-peer-review-v1 “A neoteric approach toward social media in public health informatics: Current trends and future directions” has been substantially improved. 

My remarks are as follows:

The role of the "Discussion" section is unclear. Please add introductory and final paragraphs to explain the section's purpose, or consider integrating its content with one of the two previous sections.

We do really appreciate the reviewer for the valuable input and have added introductory and final paragraphs in the discussion section.

Editing is needed to avoid some repetitions:

“The study subgroups studied…”.

“Further investigation is required to fully investigate…”.

We do really appreciate the reviewer for the valuable input and have taken care of such editing requirements to our best.

Proofreading is also necessary.

We do really appreciate the reviewer for the valuable input and have taken care of such proofreading requirements to our best.

In my opinion, the manuscript meets the requirements of the MDPI Information Journal. Therefore, my recommendation is to “Accept after minor revision”.

We greatly appreciate and thank the reviewer for taking time and giving us the feedback on these details.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Social media has become more popular in the last few years. It has been used in public health development and healthcare settings to promote healthier lifestyles. Given its important role in today's culture, it is necessary to understand its current trends and future directions in public health.

Authors propose a review aiming to describe and summarize how public health professionals have been using social media to improve population outcomes. Additionally, it discusses potential future directions on how social media can be used to improve population health.

Their findings showed how social media has been used as a tool for research, designing and implementing health campaigns, messaging, and health promotion.

In addition, social media integration with Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Generative Pre-Trained transformers (GPT) can have a big impact and offer an innovative approach to tackle the problems and difficulties in health informatics. These innovations might improve patient participation, individualized assistance, and care experiences.

In particular their research showed how likely social media will keep growing and evolving and, if used effectively, have the potential to help close public health gaps across different cultures and improve population health.

 

The study is interesting.

Some minor suggestions with a pure academic spirit.

1. Abstract must be more effective better summarizing the sections. Please also avoid to write it as a list (see in addition; additionally etc.)

2. Figure 1 must be described in details.

3. Avoid the use of “in addition” too often.

4. Better describe the aim in a more concise way (also using bullet points if needed).

5. Very good the arrangement into the two sections…(current trends,…,future directions)
6. Describe figure 2

7. Avoid the use of short paragraphs (see the discussion)

8 Perhaps the insertion of further studies in the discussion could enrich the work

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

To be honest, I'm not fan of of literature review and narrative papers. Anyway, the paper provided good information in some parts. I prefer methods part after literature review part. In literature part some topics like " Social media, AI, GPT, and Metaverse models for public health informatics " can be extended at least to 2 pages. There are a lots of rooms to improve in this topic. AI part can be extended by impact of some algoritms like NLP. I had a quantitative research related to social media and how NLP researches can change game. Please check more papers related to role of AI and some ML algorithms in social media performance.

Discussion part is "Scatter". Please rewrite the discussion part and conclusion is to brief.

Some suggested papers for your references:

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/13/1/354

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268401223000233

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10086944

https://www.mdpi.com/2504-2289/6/2/34

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this manuscript, the authors provide a summary of current trends in the applications of social media in health care and public health sector. They also outline potential future directions for the development of this innovative technology to enhance population health. The topic in interesting and worth investigating.

 

My remarks are as follows:

1. In "Abstract" and "Introduction" sections, the authors should present their contributions in the area of digitalization of public health services. At the end of “Introduction” section, a short description of the manuscript structure should be included.

2. The methodological section (“2. Methods”) is too brief. Here, some modern approaches for literature review preparation should be presented and utilized in the following sections.  

3. Figure 1 and Figure 2 should be commented. The captions for these figures should include references to the respective sources.

4. The content of “5. Discussion” section appears somewhat formal. It should be rewritten with smooth transitions between its structural parts. Subsection titles could be omitted.

5. The manuscript title could be optimized. It is unclear what do you mean using the phrase “neoteric approach”. Actually, such an approach is not presented in the manuscript text. “Informatics” and “narrative” also could be removed.

6. The title of the manuscript can be improved. While the phrase "neotheric approach" is intriguing, such an approach is not explicitly presented in the manuscript. Consider removing "Informatics" and "narrative".

7. In “6. Conclusions” section, future research plans should be added.

 

Considering the aforementioned shortcomings and the need for substantial revisions, I recommend rejecting the manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors promise a neoteric approach “to provide a concise and generative overview of current and future social media technologies in public health informatics…” but fail to do so for many reasons, some of which are described below:

Unclear focus

At various points in the paper the authors keep shifting the focus between public health informatics and public health. The two are related and not the same. Please specify the focus and stick to it consistently throughout the paper.

Three key terms of the paper are: social media, public health, and public health informatics. Please define these terms, at least as you use them, and integrate them into a coherent framework. If Figure 1 is intended to be a framework, it is inadequate. Please avoid the profusion of terms without explanation. The figure contains the following terms: social media systems, social media design, public health informatics procedures, devices and functionalities of existing public health informatics, public health system. They may all have a bearing the problem being addressed but without better organization and explanation, they do not make sense.

The Figure 1 is titled: Social media in public health informatics

Section 3.1 is: The growing use of social media in public health

The categories of Tables 1 and 2 are not matched. Shouldn’t future directions be related to the same categories as the current trends?

I do not want to belabor the point with more examples – too many words and phrases appear to be used without a coherent framework. The approach appears to be ad hoc and not systematic.

Ad Hoc Method

From the description of the search strategy, I would think that the authors retrieved a very large number of articles. How did they systematically synthesize the thesis presented without a systemic framework of the subject of their research (which too is unclear, as described earlier)? Please note further that the headings under which the synthesis is presented is not related to Figure 1 (which I presume is the framework).

Overall, the paper may present a neoteric approach, but it is also an ad hoc approach. To this reviewer, it is unclear how it may be repeated or replicated, as one would expect of a scientific research paper.