Ambiguous credentials and commercial interests in dermatology-related social media: an audit of “skin experts” and public trust in Ireland

Clicks: 11
ID: 329237
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #141 of 216 articles by views in clinical and experimental dermatology

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 216 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Dermatology information on social media may combine health advice with unclear credentials and commercial promotion. We conducted a cross-sectional audit of Ireland-focused InstagramTM and TikTokTM content and an online survey of adults in Ireland. Between 6 and 15 December 2025, the first 50 search results on each platform identified using “dermatologist”, “skin expert”, “skin specialist” and “skin doctor” were screened; 69 posts met predefined eligibility criteria. Forty-two posts were associated with registered doctors: 13 with dermatologists on the Irish Medical Council Specialist Division for Dermatology, 16 with GPs or GPs with a special interest, 12 with doctors on the General Division and one with a plastic surgeon. No identifiable medical practitioner was associated with 27 posts. Fifty-nine posts (85.5%) contained commercial activity and only two (2.9%) cited an evidence-based source. The convenience survey included 119 respondents; 83 (69.7%) used social media for skin-health information. High trust was reported for dermatologists by 92 respondents (77.3%) but for social-media online doctors by seven (5.9%; P < 0.001). Sixty-one (51.3%) were unsure whether a doctor with a dermatology diploma alone was qualified to provide online dermatology advice, and 93 (78.2%) supported a public credential-verification resource. These findings describe frequent commercial content and potential difficulty interpreting professional roles. Clear credential and commercial disclosures may help users interpret online content; causal effects on decisions or health outcomes were not assessed.
Reference Key
openalex_W7213967413 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Jane Hoban, Marion Leahy, Sinéad Field
Journal clinical and experimental dermatology
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/ced/llag419
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/ced/llag419
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.