Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article addresses the crucial issue of using social media to promote physical activity and combat obesity among young adults. This is an area of ​​growing health and social importance. The authors discuss various platforms (Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, Facebook), identifying both potential and threats (e.g., disinformation, digital inequalities, and the risk of promoting unrealistic body image patterns). A key strength is the reference to behavior change theories (SCT, TPB, COM-B, BCTs), which provides the article with a solid conceptual framework.

The introduction to the article is rich in epidemiological data, well-grounded in the literature, and logically guides the reader from the scale of the problem (obesity among young adults) to potential solutions (interventions through social media). However, as a scientific reviewer, several areas could be identified that require further clarification to enhance the clarity, depth, and substantive value of the introduction.

While examples of platforms are emerging, the precise nature of social media-based interventions remains unclear. Are they information campaigns, apps integrated with social media, or perhaps influencer marketing?

The current argument regarding the research gap is general. It is worth clarifying: What specific aspects of interventions are under-researched? (e.g., user engagement, the effectiveness of different content formats, the role of algorithms); Are there differences in effectiveness based on gender, socioeconomic status, or ethnicity?; What are the methodological problems of previous studies? (e.g., lack of control groups, small samples, poor reporting quality)

The article lacks a clearly delineated and detailed methodology section. Although the authors indicate the use of thematic synthesis and a “structured narrative approach,” they do not provide transparent information regarding the criteria for literature selection, database search procedures, inclusion and exclusion parameters, or the number and type of studies reviewed. The temporal scope of the literature search is not specified, nor is it clear whether procedures to enhance rigor—such as independent coding or systematic quality appraisal—were applied.

While the review discusses a wide range of empirical studies, it does not include a meta-analytical synthesis of findings. The selection of examples across different social media platforms appears selective, raising concerns about the representativeness of the evidence base. Moreover, the cited studies vary substantially in methodology (e.g., randomized controlled trials, quasi-experiments, content analyses, cross-sectional surveys), yet no assessment of evidence quality, potential sources of bias, or methodological limitations is provided. Furthermore, the absence of a study flow diagram, a quality appraisal table, and an appendix listing excluded publications considerably reduces the transparency of reporting.

Review Conclusion

The article offers a valuable and wide-ranging narrative on the potential and risks associated with social media–based health interventions targeting young adults. From a methodological standpoint, however, it resembles a narrative review essay rather than a systematic review conducted in line with evidence-based standards.

 

Author Response

Please find attached - Thanks!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript titled Social Media in Physical Activity Interventions Targeting Obesity Among Young Adults: Trends, Challenges, and Lessons from Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, and Facebook. This is a timely and important topic, especially given the rise of digital health tools and the increasing prevalence of obesity in young adults.

The abstract provides a clear overview of the purpose, content, and findings of the review. It introduces the topic effectively and mentions key theories and platforms. However, the abstract is quite long and includes too much detail. For better impact, it should be shortened.

The introduction offers a strong rationale for the review. It presents solid data on the rise of obesity and the role of PA in reducing related health risks. The link between young adults, social media, and health promotion is well made. However, the section could be shortened and made more focused. The background on PA and health outcomes is thorough but might be too long before getting to the main subject of social media.

In the Materials and Methods section, you state that this is a narrative review following a thematic synthesis approach. That’s helpful, but the section is too brief and lacks transparency. It would be better to describe the search process in more detail: What databases were used? What was the time frame? How were articles selected and evaluated?

The results are detailed and well-organized around conceptual themes, platform features, and behavior change theories. Tables are used effectively to summarize complex information. You successfully explain key theories like Social Cognitive Theory, Theory of Planned Behavior, and the COM-B model, showing how they relate to digital interventions. The explanation of how each social media platform supports PA behavior is one of the strongest parts of the paper.

The discussion provides an in-depth look at ethical issues, misinformation, and accessibility challenges. It’s strong in addressing digital inequalities and the risks of poor-quality content. These are very important topics, and you provide good evidence to support your arguments. The tone is balanced, showing both the strengths and weaknesses of social media-based interventions

The conclusion restates the main findings well, and your suggestions for future research are relevant. The recommendation to use wearables, AI, and co-design methods is useful and aligned with current trends. Still, the conclusion is a bit long and could be more focused.

This is a valuable and well-researched manuscript that addresses a very relevant topic. With revisions to shorten and clarify some parts, improve the methods section, it could make a strong contribution to the literature on digital health interventions.

Sincerely,
Reviewer

Author Response

Please find attached - thanks!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed the suggestions provided in the previous review.  In particular, the Methodology section has been significantly expanded and reorganized, which greatly enhances the clarity, logical flow, and overall transparency of the research design. These revisions contribute to a better understanding of the study’s approach and strengthen the manuscript as a whole.