With more than 4.26 billion social media users worldwide, social media has become a primary source of health information, exchange, and influence. As its use has rapidly expanded, social media has proven to be a "doubled-edged sword," with considerable benefits as well as notable harms. It can be used to encourage preventive behaviors, foster social connectivity for better mental health, enable health officials to deliver timely information, and connect individuals to reliable information. But social media also has contributed to public health crises by exacerbating a decline in public trust, deteriorating mental health (especially in young people), and spreading dangerous misinformation. These realities have profound implications for health professionals, social media companies, governments, and users. We discuss promising guidelines, digital safety practices, and regulations on which to build a comprehensive approach to healthy use of social media. Concerted efforts from social media companies, governments, users, public interest groups, and academia are essential to mitigate the harms and unlock the benefits of this powerful new technology.

As its usage has grown, social media has positively and negatively impacted public health. Although social media presents known harms to mental health and spreads misinformation, it also offers rapid dissemination of public health information, expanded access to health resources, and a robust source of health information. However, these benefits are not equitably shared due in part to the “digital divide” of unequal access and use of information and communication technologies. Measurable inequalities in digital access exist among regions, with an eight-fold difference between Central Africa (9.8% social media penetration) and Northern Europe (80.2% social media penetration). Digital inequalities also differ by gender, age, and socioeconomic classes within countries. Increased digital access has been positively associated with improved health information and outcomes related to chronic diseases, infectious disease outbreaks, and reproductive health. Given the expanding role of social media in public health and the emerging evidence on the health benefits of digital access, we argue for reducing digital inequities by (1) creating an enabling government policy and regulatory environment that views digital health access as a social determinant of health; (2) targeting public and private investments to expand digital access for underserved regions and populations; (3) making digital access and use affordable to low-resource populations; and (4) improving digital competency among these groups through digital literacy programs.

Misuse and overconsumption of certain consumer products have become major global risk factors for premature deaths, with their total costs in trillions of dollars. Progress in reducing such deaths has been slow and difficult. To address this challenge, this review introduces the definition of market-driven epidemics (MDEs), which arise when companies aggressively market products with proven harms, deny these harms, and resist mitigation efforts. MDEs are a specific within the broader landscape of commercial determinants of health. We selected three illustrative MDE products reflecting different consumer experiences: cigarettes (nicotine delivery product), sugar (food product), and prescription opioids (medical product). Each met the MDE case definition with proven adverse health impacts, well-documented histories, longitudinal product consumption and health impact data, and sustained reduction in product consumption. Based on these epidemics, we describe five MDE phases: market expansion, evidence of harm, corporate resistance, mitigation, and market adaptation. From the peak of consumption to the most recent data, U.S. cigarette sales fell by 82%, sugar consumption by 15%, and prescription opioid prescriptions by 62%. For each, the consumption tipping point occurred when compelling evidence of harm, professional alarm, and an authoritative public health voice and/or public mobilization overcame corporate marketing and resistance efforts. The gap between suspicion of harm and the consumption tipping point ranged from one to five decades–much of which was attributable to the time required to generate sufficient evidence of harm. Market adaptation to the reduced consumption of target products had both negative and positive impacts. To our knowledge, this is the first comparative analysis of three successful efforts to change the product consumption patterns and the associated adverse health impacts of these products. The MDE epidemiological approach of shortening the latent time to effective mitigation provides a new method to reduce the impacts of harmful products.