Logo image
Back
At-Home Red Light Therapy Devices: Promotion and Recommendation Patterns on Social Media in the Context of Limited Evidence
Journal article   Open access   Peer reviewed

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

Taylor Merkle, Luke P Tomczak, Khai Do, Michael Aji and Erum Ilyas
Curēus (Palo Alto, CA), v 199, e103274
09 Feb 2026
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.103274
PMID: 41822644
Featured in Collection :   UN Sustainable Development Goals @ Drexel
url
https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.103274View
Published, Version of Record (VoR)CC BY V4.0,  Open

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.

Metrics

1 Record Views
21 citations in Web of Science

Details

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This publication has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:

#3 Good Health and Well-Being

InCites Highlights

Data related to this publication, from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool:

Web of Science research areas
Pharmacology & Pharmacy
Logo image