At-Home Red Light Therapy Devices: Promotion and Recommendation Patterns on Social Media in the Context of Limited Evidence

TL;DR

This study examines how red light therapy devices are promoted on social media and finds that claims often exceed scientific evidence.

Contribution

The study reveals patterns of promotion and credibility of red light therapy claims on social media platforms.

Findings

Non-credentialed creators dominate RLT promotion on social media despite physicians having higher reach.

Most promoted RLT devices combine red and near-infrared light, with limited evidence supporting their claims.

Physicians focus on anti-aging and acne benefits, while non-physicians promote a broader range of skin benefits.

Abstract

The popularity of red light therapy (RLT) has grown substantially, with social media playing a significant role. The objective of this study was to characterize how RLT is promoted on social media and to assess whether these claims align with current evidence-based dermatologic applications by examining creator credentials, promoted device characteristics and costs, claimed indications, and patterns of content reach that may contribute to acceptance of unverified health-related claims. After exclusions, 132 posts were analyzed with an overall potential reach of 47.5 million followers. While non-credentialed authors created 64.4% of posts compared to 18.2% of physicians, the overall reach of physician posts was 38.9% based on the total number of followers. Red light (RL) + near-infrared (nIR) devices were most commonly recommended (63.7%), followed by multiwavelength devices (MWD) (23.4%). RL-only devices were recommended by 1.6% of posts. Median device price varied, with non-credentialed posts recommending lower-priced devices ($347), followed by physicians ($469), and then other advanced degree and licensed professionals ($629). A significant association was found between platform and credential (χ² (2) = 25.85, p < 0.0001), with TikTok posts predominantly from non-credentialed accounts (87.7%) and Instagram being more mixed. Credentialed accounts were more likely to recommend RL + nIR over MWD (χ² = 6.80, p = 0.0091). "Skin" was the most consistently referenced benefit category at 88.6%, with physicians focused on anti-aging and acne benefits (66.7% and 20.8%) and non-physicians on a broader range of skin targets. While vague references to "research" and "studies" were made by most posts, only 8.3% of posts provided peer-reviewed journal articles as support. There was a discrepancy in terms of energy output from promoted at-home devices, which remain untested, compared with the specifications found in these references. Overall, the claimed benefits of RLT and promotional at-home devices on social media are often well beyond substantiated evidence, which may leave patients with unrealistic expectations. Factors influencing trust in promotional claims may vary due to the limited ability of platforms to verify credential authenticity. Although physicians make up a smaller percentage of content, their overall potential reach provides the opportunity to enhance evidence-based guidance rather than reinforce commercially driven messaging.