Student-created digital artefacts for health promotion and disease prevention: A scoping review.
Anke van der Merwe, Lizemari Hugo
Only eleven studies exist on undergraduate students creating digital health-promotion content, and none involved rehabilitation students.
Most were US-based, used medical or nursing students, and produced videos shared on social media. Target populations reported increased knowledge and empowerment.
Key findings
1Eleven articles met inclusion criteria. Ten of the eleven came from high-income countries, with the United States contributing six. Medical students (6) and nursing students (5) created most of the artefacts. No physiotherapy, occupational therapy, or speech-language pathology students appear in any included study.
2Six of the eleven studies produced video-based materials. Social media platforms (Instagram, Pinterest) were the most common sharing method. Target populations reported empowerment, increased knowledge, and cultural relevance; students reported feeling empowered and gaining content and digital skills.
3Only two of the eleven studies used an underpinning educational theory or framework. Nine of the eleven scored above 65% on the Morrison critical appraisal checklist for educational interventions.
Still to come
How it was doneWhat they found
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only 11 articles were identified, which the authors note is concerning given the global uptake of mobile technology. Ten of the eleven studies came from high-income countries; only one was from a lower-middle-income setting (Oman). No rehabilitation students (physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech-language pathology) appear in any included study, which the authors flag as a gap. Only two of the eleven studies used an underpinning educational theory or framework, limiting the ability to generalise about what makes these activities effective. Most included studies (6 of 11) used purely quantitative methodology, and several did not report the year level of students involved. The review is descriptive (scoping) and does not appraise the effectiveness of the digital artefacts on patient or community outcomes.
Declared interests
The authors state the research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the reported 'increased knowledge' and 'empowerment' as evidence that digital health-promotion content improves patient or community outcomes. These are self-reported perceptions from small educational studies of student activities, not measured clinical results. None of the 11 included studies involved rehabilitation patients or clinicians, so there is nothing here to change how you treat a patient on Monday.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →