Use of social media platforms by migrant and ethnic minority populations during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article

Abstract

Migrants and ethnic minority groups have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19 and have lower levels of vaccine uptake in some contexts. We aimed to determine the extent and nature of social media use in migrant and ethnic minority communities for COVID-19 information, and implications for preventative health measures including vaccination intent and uptake.

Design

A systematic review of published and grey literature following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched databases including Embase, Web of Science, PubMed NIH, CINAHL, facilitated through the WHO Global Research on COVID-19 database from 31 December 2019 to 9 June 2021.

Eligibility criteria for study selection

Research reporting the use of social media by migrants and/or ethnic minority groups in relation to COVID-19.

Data extraction

We extracted data on key outcomes, study design, country, population under study and sample size.

Results

1849 unique records were screened, and 21 data sources were included, including populations in the UK, USA, China, Jordan, Qatar and Turkey. We found evidence of consistent use of a range of social media platforms for COVID-19 information in some migrant and ethnic minority populations (including WeChat, Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube), which may stem from difficulty in accessing COVID-19 information in their native languages or from trusted sources. Some evidence suggested circulating misinformation and social media use may be associated with lower participation in preventative health measures, including vaccine intent and uptake, findings which are likely relevant to multiple population groups.

Conclusions

Social media platforms are an important source of information about COVID-19 for some migrant and ethnic minority populations. Urgent actions and further research are now needed to better understand effective approaches to tackling circulating misinformation, and to seize on opportunities to better use social media platforms to support public health communication and improve vaccine uptake.

Registration

This study has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021259190).

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2022.02.07.22270579: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    We searched the following databases: Embase, Web of Science, Oxford Academic Journals, PubMed NIH, Clinical Trials, China CDC MMWR, CDC reports, ProQuest Central (Proquest), CINAHL, Africa Wide Information (Ebsco), Scopus, PsycInfo, CAB Abstracts, Global Health, J Stage, Science Direct, Wiley Online Journals, JAMA Network, British Medical Journal, Mary Ann Liebert, New England Journal of Medicine, Sage Publications, Taylor and Francis Online, Springer Link, Biomed Central, MDPI, ASM, PLOS, The Lancet, Cell Press, and pre-print sites chemRxiv, SSRNbioRxiv, and medRxiv facilitated through the WHO Global Research on COVID-19 database from inception to 9/6/2021 (https://search.bvsalud.org/global-literature-on-novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov/).
    Embase
    suggested: (EMBASE, RRID:SCR_001650)
    PubMed
    suggested: (PubMed, RRID:SCR_004846)
    PsycInfo
    suggested: (PsycINFO, RRID:SCR_014799)
    Data Extraction, critical appraisal, and synthesis: Data extraction was completed independently by two researchers (MRP and LG) using a piloted, structured data extraction sheet in Microsoft Excel and data were collated and assessed using narrative synthesis.
    Microsoft Excel
    suggested: (Microsoft Excel, RRID:SCR_016137)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).


    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.


    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.


    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.


    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.


    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.