DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/jnc.v14i4.48107

METODE EVALUASI KREDIBILITAS, KUALITAS, SERTA AKURASI KONTEN EDUKASI GIZI DI MEDIA SOSIAL: LITERATURE REVIEW

Departemen Ilmu Gizi, Fakultas Kedokteran, Universitas Diponegoro, Semarang, Jawa Tengah, Indonesia

Received: 21 Nov 2024; Revised: 23 Apr 2025; Accepted: 30 Apr 2025; Available online: 30 Oct 2025; Published: 30 Oct 2025.

Citation Format:
Abstract

ABSTRACT

Background: Social media has now become a platform to find and share health information related to nutrition, Lot of information does not come from professionals, but comes from Social Media Influencer (IMS), Studies show that the credibility of IMS, quality and accuracy of nutrition-related content on social media is relatively low. This can increase misinformation related to nutritional content on social media. Therefore, it is important to evaluate the credibility of IMS, quality and accuracy of nutrition-related content on Indonesia’s social media.

Objective: The aim of this study is to analyze methods used to evaluate IMS credibility, quality, and accuracy of nutritional content on social media.

Methods: This research is a literature review with a narrative method by reviewing 3 articles based on the objectives, methods, and results presented in the article. Article searches were conducted using national and international articles searched with Google Scholar and Pubmed.

Result: IMS credibility evaluated with credibility checklist tools that included 4 themes:  transparency, use of other resources, trustworthiness and adherence to nutritional criteria, and bias. Content quality can be evaluated with Principles for Health-Related Information on Social Media (PRHISM) or questionnaires likert-5. Content accuracy can be evaluated by checking the truth of the content compared with scientific evidence such as official guidelines, scientific references, or websites that analyze facts. The results of the IMS credibility were 47.2% out of 100% (1st study). The content quality score was an average of 31.8% (2nd study), and 93.9% of the content has poor quality, also 44.7% of the content contains inaccuracy (3rd study).

Keywords: Social media; Nutrition Promotion; Influencer; Credibility; Content; Quality; Accuracy

 

ABSTRAK

Latar belakang: Media sosial umum menjadi sarana mencari dan menyebarkan informasi kesehatan, termasuk di dalamnya informasi terkait gizi. Banyak informasi tidak datang dari tenaga profesional, namun seringkali datang dari Influencer Media Sosial (IMS). Studi menyebutkan bahwa kredibilitas IMS, kualitas, dan akurasi konten terkait gizi yang beredar di media sosial terbilang rendah. Hal ini dapat menyebabkan misinformasi tersebar di media sosial. Oleh karena itu, penting untuk dilakukan evaluasi terhadap kredibilitas IMS, kualitas, dan akurasi konten terkait gizi yang beredar di media sosial Indonesia saat ini.

Tujuan: Untuk mengetahui metode yang dapat digunakan untuk mengevaluasi kredibilitas IMS, kualitas konten, serta akurasi konten gizi yang beredar di media sosial.

Metode: Penelitian ini merupakan literature review dengan metode naratif dengan mengkaji 3 artikel. Pencarian artikel dilakukan dengan menggunakan artikel internasional yang ditelusuri dengan database Google Scholar dan Pubmed.

Hasil: Kredibilitas IMS dievaluasi menggunakan checklist yang mencakup 4 tema, yaitu: transparency, use of other resources, trustworthiness and adherence to nutritional criteria, dan bias. Kualitas konten dievaluasi menggunakan tools Principles for Health-Related Information on Social Media (PRHISM)) atau bisa dengan menggunakan kuesioner skala likert-5. Akurasi konten dievaluasi dengan membandingkan klaim konten terhadap bukti ilmiah seperti pedoman resmi dari organisasi kesehatan, referensi ilmiah, maupun website yang mengevaluasi fakta. Hasil evaluasi kredibilitas IMS sebesar 47,2% dari 100%, skor kualitas konten sebesar rata-rata 31,8% (Studi 2), dan 93,9% konten berkualitas buruk (Studi 3), serta ditemukan 44,7% konten mengandung ketidakakuratan.

Simpulan: Evaluasi kredibilitas IMS, kualitas serta akurasi konten gizi di media sosial dapat dievaluasi dengan metode yang sudah pernah digunakan di penelitian sebelumnya. Hasil penelitian di luar Indonesia menunjukkan jika kredibilitas IMS, kualitas, dan akurasi konten masih rendah. Metode yang ada dapat diaplikasikan untuk melihat lanskap IMS dan konten berhubungan dengan gizi di media sosial di Indonesia dan menjadi bahan evaluasi edukator gizi di Indonesia.

Kata Kunci: Media Sosial; Promosi Gizi; Influencer; Kredibilitas; Konten; Kualitas; Akurasi.

Fulltext View|Download
Keywords: Media Sosial; Promosi Gizi; Influencer; Kredibilitas; Konten; Kualitas; Akurasi

Article Metrics:

Article Info
Section: Articles
Language : ID
Recent articles
PENGARUH PENAMBAHAN HIDROLISAT PROTEIN IKAN TERHADAP KANDUNGAN GIZI PRODUK PANGAN: TINJAUAN SISTEMATIS PENGARUH PENGALAMAN SENSORI IBU PADA MASA PRENATAL DAN POSTNATAL TERHADAP PREFERENSI RASA DAN RISIKO OBESITAS ANAK: LITERATUR REVIEW METODE EVALUASI KREDIBILITAS, KUALITAS, SERTA AKURASI KONTEN EDUKASI GIZI DI MEDIA SOSIAL: LITERATURE REVIEW More recent articles
  1. Kemp, S. Report Global Digital 2024: Indonesia. Data Reportal. 2024. [Diunduh pada 5 Oktober 2024] Dapat diakses pada: https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2024-global-overview-report
  2. Fitriani, Y. Analisis Pemanfaatan Berbagai Media Sosial Sebagai Sarana Penyebaran Informasi Bagi Masyarakat. Jurnal Paradigma LPPM Universitas Bina Sarana Informatika. 2017; 19(2): 148 – 152. doi: 10.31294/p.v19i2.2120
  3. Maher C, Ryan J, Kernot J, Podsiadly J, Keenihan S. Social media and applications to health behavior. Curr Opin Psychol. 2016; 9:50–5. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.10.021
  4. Hariyanti NT., Wirapraja A. Pengaruh Influencer Marketing Sebagai Strategi Pemasaran Digital Era Modern. Jurnal Eksekutif 2018; 15:133-146. doi: 10.15642/manova.v1i2.350
  5. Powell J, Pring T. The impact of social media influencers on health outcomes: Systematic review. Social Science & Medicine. 2024; 340:116472. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116472
  6. Jenkins EL, Ilicic J, Barklamb AM, McCaffrey TA. Assessing the Credibility and Authenticity of Social Media Content for Applications in Health Communication: Scoping Review. J Med Internet Res. 2020; 22(7):e17296. doi: 10.2196/17296
  7. Fernandez MA, Caretero A, Jacob E, et al. Credibility and reach of nutrition influencers on social media. BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health. 2022;5. doi: 10.1136/bmjnph-2022-nnedprosummit.24
  8. Denniss E, Lindberg R, McNaughton SA. Quality and accuracy of online nutrition-related information: a systematic review of content analysis studies. Public Health Nutr. 2023; 26(7):1345-1357. doi: 10.1017/S1368980023000873
  9. Denniss E, Lindberg R, McNaughton SA. Nutrition-Related Information on Instagram: A Content Analysis of Posts by Popular Australian Accounts. Nutrients. 2023; 15(10):2332. doi: 10.3390/nu15102332
  10. Sanzari CM, Gorrell S, Anderson LM, Reilly EE, Niemiec MA, Orloff NC, Anderson DA, Hormes JM. The impact of social media use on body image and disordered eating behaviors: Content matters more than duration of exposure. Eat Behav. 2023; 49:101722. doi: 10.1016/j.eatbeh.2023.101722
  11. Fallis D. What is disinformation?. Library Trends. 2015; 63 (2). pp. 401-426. doi: 10.1353/lib.2015.0014
  12. Ventura, V, Cavaliere, A, Ianno, B. #Socialfood: Virtuous or vicious? A systematic review. Trends Food Sci Technol, 110. 2021; PP. 674-686. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2021.02.018
  13. D. Loft, Z. When Social Media Met Nutrition. Health Science Inquiry. 2020; 11(1):56-61. doi: 10.29173/hsi319
  14. Todorov A, Chaiken S, Henderson M. The Heu-ristic-Systematic Model of Social Information Pro-cessing. In: Dillard JP, Pfau M, editors. The Persuasion Handbook: Developments in Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc. 2002; p. 195-212. doi: 10.4135/9781412976046.n11
  15. C. T. Lynn, P. Rosati, G. Leoni Santos, P.T. Endo. Sorting the healthy diet signal from the social media expert noise: preliminary evidence from the healthy diet discourse on twitter. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 17 (22). p. 8557. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17228557
  16. Jung EH, Walsh-Childers K, Kim H-S. Factors influenc-ing the perceived credibility of diet-nutrition informa-tion websites. Comput-ers in Human Behavior. 2016;58:37-47. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.044
  17. C.D. Ryan, A.J. Schaul, R. Butner, J.T. Swarthout. Monetizing disinformation in the attention economy: the case of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Eur Manag J. 2020; (1), pp. 7-18. doi:
  18. H. J. Cook, S. Lewandowsky, U.K. Ecker. Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence. PLoS One. 2017; 12 (5). Article e0175799. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2019.11.002
  19. Kreft, M., Smith, B., Hopwood, D., & Blaauw, R. The use of social media as a source of nutrition information. South African Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2023; 36(4), 162–168. doi: 10.1080/16070658.2023.2175518
  20. Nematzadeh A, Ciampaglia GL, Menczer F, Flammini A. How algorithmic popularity bias hinders or promotes quality. Scientific reports. 2018; 8:15951. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-34203-2
  21. Sandelowski, M. Reading, writing and systematic review. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2008; 64(1), p.104-110. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04813.x
  22. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, McGuinness LA, Stewart LA, Thomas J, Tricco AC, Welch VA, Whiting P, Moher D. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372(71). doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71
  23. Sabbagh C, Boyland E, Hankey C, Parrett A. Analysing Credibility of UK Social Media Influencers' Weight-Management Blogs: A Pilot Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 17(23):9022. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17239022
  24. Denniss E, Lindberg R, Marchese L, McNaughton S. #Fail: the quality and accuracy of nutrition-related information by influential Australian Instagram accounts. 2024; 21(16). doi: 10.1186/s12966-024-01565-y
  25. Kabata P, Winniczuk-Kabata D, Kabata PM, Jaśkiewicz J, Połom K. Can Social Media Profiles Be a Reliable Source of Information on Nutrition and Dietetics? Healthcare (Basel). 2022;10(2):397. doi: 10.3390/healthcare10020397
  26. British Dietetic Association. Survey Finds that Almost 60% of People Trust Nutrition Advice from Underqualified Professionals. BDA: The Association of UK Dietitians. 2017 [diunduh pada 11 Oktober 2024] Dapat diakses pada: https://www.bda.uk.com/resource/survey-finds-that-almost-60-of-people-trust-nutrition-advice-from-underqualified-professionals.html

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update:

No citation recorded.