Dissemination of medical publications on social media – is it the new standard?

Examining the Effectiveness of Social Media for the Dissemination of Research Evidence for Health and Social Care Practitioners: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Social media use has potential to facilitate the rapid dissemination of research evidence to busy health and social care practitioners.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to quantitatively synthesize evidence of the between- and within-group effectiveness of social media for dissemination of research evidence to health and social care practitioners. It also compared effectiveness between different social media platforms, formats, and strategies.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases for articles in English that were published between January 1, 2010, and January 10, 2023, and that evaluated social media interventions for disseminating research evidence to qualified, postregistration health and social care practitioners in measures of reach, engagement, direct dissemination, or impact. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were carried out by at least 2 independent reviewers. Meta-analyses of standardized pooled effects were carried out for between- and within-group effectiveness of social media and comparisons between platforms, formats, and strategies. Certainty of evidence for outcomes was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) framework.

RESULTS

In total, 50 mixed-quality articles that were heterogeneous in design and outcome were included (n=9, 18% were randomized controlled trials [RCTs]). Reach (measured in number of practitioners, impressions, or post views) was reported in 26 studies. Engagement (measured in likes or post interactions) was evaluated in 21 studies. Direct dissemination (measured in link clicks, article views, downloads, or altmetric attention score) was analyzed in 23 studies (8 RCTs). Impact (measured in citations or measures of thinking and practice) was reported in 13 studies. Included studies almost universally indicated effects in favor of social media interventions, although effect sizes varied. Cumulative evidence indicated moderate certainty of large and moderate between-group effects of social media interventions on direct dissemination (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.88; P=.02) and impact (SMD 0.76; P<.001). After social media interventions, cumulative evidence showed moderate certainty of large within-group effects on reach (SMD 1.99; P<.001), engagement (SMD 3.74; P<.001), and direct dissemination (SMD 0.82; P=.004) and low certainty of a small within-group effect on impacting thinking or practice (SMD 0.45; P=.02). There was also evidence for the effectiveness of using multiple social media platforms (including Twitter, subsequently rebranded X; and Facebook), images (particularly infographics), and intensive social media strategies with frequent, daily posts and involving influential others. No included studies tested the dissemination of research evidence to social care practitioners.

CONCLUSIONS

Social media was effective for disseminating research evidence to health care practitioners. More intense social media campaigns using specific platforms, formats, and strategies may be more effective than less intense interventions. Implications include recommendations for effective dissemination of research evidence to health care practitioners and further RCTs in this field, particularly investigating the dissemination of social care research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42022378793; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=378793.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR2-10.2196/45684.

Use of Facebook in a quality improvement campaign to increase adherence to guidelines in intensive care: A qualitative study of nurses' and physicians' experiences

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to explore intensive care unit nurses' and physicians' experiences with professional content provided through closed Facebook groups, as part of a quality improvement campaign to improve guideline adherence.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This study used an exploratory qualitative design. In June 2018, data were collected through focus groups of intensive care nurses and physicians who also were members of closed Facebook groups. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis, and the study was reported according to the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research.

SETTING

The study's setting was four intensive care units at Oslo University Hospital, Norway. Professional content on Facebook comprised audit and feedback on quality indicators on intensive care topics with related pictures, videos, and weblinks.

FINDINGS

Two focus groups of 12 participants were included in this study. Two main themes were identified: 'One size does not fit all ' described that quality improvement and implementation are influenced by several factors related to current recommendations and personal preferences. Various strategies are required to serve different purposes and meet individual needs. 'Matter out of place' described conflicting experiences of being offered or exposed to professional content on Facebook.

CONCLUSION

Although the audit and feedback on quality indicators presented on Facebook motivated improvements, professional content on Facebook was perceived as inappropriate. Hospital platforms with applicable features of social media, such as reach, availability, convenience, ease, and possibility for commenting, were suggested to secure professional communication about recommended practices in intensive care units.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

Social media platforms may be useful for professional communication among ICU personnel, but appropriate hospital applications with available and applicable social media features are recommended and needed. The use of several platforms may still be needed to reach all.

Social Media Utilization in Otolaryngology: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

Social media (SM) is an increasingly popular medium for the medical community to engage with patients, trainees, and colleagues. This review aimed to identify reported uses of SM in otolaryngology-head and neck surgery (OHNS), assess the quality of evidence supporting these uses, and identify gaps in the literature. With the relative lack of regulatory guidelines for the development of SM content, we hypothesized that the quality of content available on SM would be highly variable.

DATA SOURCES AND METHODS

A scoping review was performed of English-language peer-reviewed studies published to date discussing SM use in any form within OHNS. Three reviewers independently screened all abstracts. Two reviewers independently extracted data of interest from the full text of articles identified from the preliminary abstract screen.

RESULTS

171 studies were included, with 94 (54.9%) studies published between 2020 and 2022. 104 (60.8%) studies were conducted in the US. 135 (78.9%) used cross-sectional or survey-based methodology; only 7 (4.1%) were controlled studies. SM was most commonly employed for professional networking (n = 37 [21%]), and within subspecialties of otology (n = 38 [22%]) and rhinology/allergy (n = 25 [15%]). Facebook was most frequently used for study recruitment (n = 23 [13.5%]), YouTube for patient education (n = 15 [14.6%]), and Twitter for professional networking (n = 16 [9.4%]).

CONCLUSION

SM use within OHNS is increasing rapidly, with applications including patient education, professional networking, and study recruitment. Despite myriad articles, there remains a paucity of well-controlled studies. As SM becomes integrated into healthcare, particularly for applications directly impacting patient care, higher levels of evidence are needed to understand its true impact. Laryngoscope, 133:2447-2456, 2023.

The use of social media for dissemination of research evidence to health and social care practitioners: a systematic review protocol (Preprint)

BACKGROUND

Effective dissemination of research to health and social care practitioners enhances clinical practice and evidence-based care. Social media use has potential to facilitate dissemination to busy practitioners.

OBJECTIVE

This is a protocol for a systematic review that will quantitatively synthesize evidence of the effectiveness of social media, compared with no social media, for dissemination of research evidence to health and social care practitioners. Social media platforms, formats, and sharing mechanisms used for effective dissemination of research evidence will also be identified and compared.

METHODS

Electronic database searches (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC, LISTA, and OpenGrey) will be conducted from January 1, 2010, to January 10, 2023, for studies published in English. Randomized, nonrandomized, pre-post study designs or case studies evaluating the effect of social media on dissemination of research evidence to postregistration health and social care practitioners will be included. Studies that do not involve social media or dissemination or those that evaluate dissemination of nonresearch information (eg, multisource educational materials) to students or members of the public only, or without quantitative data on outcomes of interest, will be excluded. Screening will be carried out by 2 independent reviewers. Data extraction and quality assessment, using either the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias or the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, will be completed by 2 independent reviewers. Outcomes of interest will be reported in 4 domains (reach, engagement, dissemination, and impact). Data synthesis will include quantitative comparisons using narrative text, tables, and figures. A meta-analysis of standardized pooled effects will be undertaken, and subgroup analyses will be applied, if appropriate.

RESULTS

Searches and screening will be completed by the end of May 2023. Data extraction and analyses will be completed by the end of July 2023, after which findings will be synthesized and reported by the end of October 2023.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review will summarize the evidence for the effectiveness of social media for the dissemination of research evidence to health and social care practitioners. The limitations of the evidence may include multiple outcomes or methodological heterogeneity that limit meta-analyses, potential risk of bias in included studies, and potential publication bias. The limitations of the study design may include potential insensitivity of the electronic database search strategy. The findings from this review will inform the dissemination practice of health and care research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022378793; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=378793.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/45684.

Disseminating implementation science: Describing the impact of animations shared via social media

Background

Dissemination is an under-researched activity that is important to researchers and funders and may have a role in creating conditions for implementation. We aim to study the impact of two animations shared via social media upon dissemination.

Methods

We developed two short animations to increase the awareness of healthcare positional leaders of work undertaken to enhance a much-used implementation intervention. We measured both how frequently the related articles were accessed, and engagement with the research team, before and after the intervention. We analysed variation over time using statistical process control to identify both trend and periods of significant change.

Results

We found evidence that the animation increased how frequently the articles were accessed, with a significant increase (p = <0.01) during the two weeks after release of each animation. One animation was associated with an increase in positional leaders’ engagement with the research team.

Conclusions

Animations shared via social media can enhance dissemination. We describe lessons from the work to develop the intervention and support calls for work to increase the understanding and adoption of effective dissemination interventions. Our findings provide support for further work using randomised study designs.

Resident physicians' perceptions of COVID-19 risk

BACKGROUND

Resident physicians provide front-line care to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, but little is known about how they perceive the risk to their own health or how this is affected by the increasing role of social media in disseminating information. This study aims to determine resident physicians' perceptions of personal COVID-19 risk during the first COVID wave and compare risk perceptions between low-average and high social media users.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey at the University of Toronto in May 2020 among resident physicians in internal medicine, emergency medicine, critical care, and anaesthesia. Participants were considered high social media users if above the median for daily social media use and low-average users if at or below the median. The primary outcome was perceived risk of hospitalization with COVID-19 within 6 months.

RESULTS

A total of 98 resident physicians reported a median of 1-2 hours daily on social media, and 55.7% endorsed social media as a very or the most common source of information on COVID-19. The median overall perceived risk of hospitalization was 10% (inter-quartile range [IQR] 5-25)-7.5% for low-average social media users and 17.5% for high social media users (p = 0.10).

CONCLUSIONS

Resident physicians have an elevated perception of COVID-19 risk, including a perceived risk of hospitalization 250 times greater than the local population risk. Although social media are an important source of information on COVID-19, risk perception did not significantly differ between high and low-average social media users.

A report on virtual 'Can't intubate, can't oxygenate' conference workshops at the 2021 Annual Scientific Meeting of the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists

The COVID-19 pandemic has had profound implications for continuing medical education. Travel restrictions, lockdowns and social distancing in an effort to curb spread have meant that medical conferences have been postponed or cancelled. When the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists made the decision to commit to a fully virtual 2021 Annual Scientific Meeting, the organising committee investigated the viability of presenting a virtual 'Can't intubate, can't oxygenate' workshop. A workshop was designed comprising a lecture, case scenario discussion and demonstration of emergency front-of-neck access techniques broadcast from a central hub before participants separated into Zoom® (Zoom Video Communications, San Jose, CA, USA) breakout rooms for hands-on practice, guided by facilitators working virtually from their own home studios. Kits containing equipment including a 3D printed larynx, cannula, scalpel and bougie were sent to workshop participants in the weeks before the meeting. Participants were asked to complete pre- and post-workshop surveys. Of 42 participants, 32 responded, with the majority rating the workshop 'better than expected'. All except two respondents felt the workshop met learning objectives. Themes of positive feedback included being impressed with the airway model, the small group size, content and delivery. Feedback focused on previously unperceived advantages of virtual technical skills workshops, including convenience, equitable access and the reusable airway model. Disadvantages noted by respondents included lack of social interaction, inability to trial more expensive airway equipment, and some limitations of the ability of facilitators to review participants' technique. Despite limitations, in our experience, virtual workshops can be planned with innovative solutions to deliver technical skills education successfully.

Shortcomings of Rapid Clinical Information Dissemination: Lessons From a Pandemic

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to an acceleration of clinical information dissemination to unprecedented speeds, a phenomenon only partially explained by formal efforts of the scientific community. These have ranged from the establishment of open-source platforms for review of article preprints to the elimination of journal paywalls for COVID-19-related publications. In addition, informal efforts that rely on various modern media platforms that promote, repackage, and synthesize information have played substantial adjunctive roles, many of which did not exist during the severe acute respiratory syndrome pandemic of 2003. Although these latter efforts have greatly bolstered the speed of knowledge dissemination, their unregulated nature subjects them to risk for facilitating the spread of misinformation. In our opinion, the role of modern media in influencing clinical knowledge dissemination was not adequately examined even before the pandemic and therefore remains largely unchecked. In this article, we examine the spread of information in the field of COVID-19 and neurologic disorders, develop a simple model that maps various modern media tools on to the dissemination pipeline, and critically examine its components. Through this exercise, we identify opportunities for the scientific community to regulate and safeguard the clinical knowledge dissemination process, with implications both for the pandemic and beyond.

Social media in surgery: evolving role in research communication and beyond

PURPOSE

To present social media (SoMe) platforms for surgeons, how these are used, with what impact, and their roles for research communication.

METHODS

A narrative review based on a literature search regarding social media use, of studies and findings pertaining to surgical disciplines, and the authors' own experience.

RESULTS

Several social networking platforms for surgeons are presented to the reader. The more frequently used, i.e., Twitter, is presented with details of opportunities, specific fora for communication, presenting tips for effective use, and also some caveats to use. Details of how the surgical community evolved through the use of the hashtag #SoMe4Surgery are presented. The impact on gender diversity in surgery through important hashtags (from #ILookLikeASurgeon to #MedBikini) is discussed. Practical tips on generating tweets and use of visual abstracts are presented, with influence on post-production distribution of journal articles through "tweetorials" and "tweetchats." Findings from seminal studies on SoMe and the impact on traditional metrics (regular citations) and alternative metrics (Altmetrics, including tweets, retweets, news outlet mentions) are presented. Some concerns on misuse and SoMe caveats are discussed.

CONCLUSION

Over the last two decades, social media has had a huge impact on science dissemination, journal article discussions, and presentation of conference news. Immediate and real-time presentation of studies, articles, or presentations has flattened hierarchy for participation, debate, and engagement. Surgeons should learn how to use novel communication technology to advance the field and further professional and public interaction.

A Portrait of Current Radiation Oncology Twitter Influencers

Introduction We aimed to characterize the most influential radiation oncologists on Twitter, the correlation between their Twitter activity and their academic profiles as measured by the Scopus H-index as well as their activity around the American Society for Radiation Oncologists (ASTRO) 2018 meeting. Methods We defined radiation oncology influencers as any radiation oncologist with 500 or more followers on Twitter through the first two weeks of August 2019. We collected their available characteristics, their Scopus H-index, and Twitter metrics. We examined their general Twitter activity as well as their specific activity before, during, and after the 2018 ASTRO annual meeting. We identified the most frequent tweet content categories for each influencer. Results We identified 48 radiation oncologist influencers; 79% were male, 75% were based in the United States, and 94% were affiliated with an academic center. Among them, 44% had high H-indices of ≥21, an average value in academic faculty for full professors or department heads. There were no correlations between H-index and Twitter metrics such as the number of individuals the influencer was following (p = 0.58), the number of followers (p = 0.66), the number of tweets (p = 0.88), and the number of likes (p = 0.54). During the period around ASTRO 2018, the mean number of tweets per influencer was 4437 (range 87-93,000). Conclusion Current radiation oncology influencers are predominantly North American males from academic institutions. A correlation between academic productivity as measured by the H-index and Twitter metrics was not demonstrated. The fact that some influencers had a low H-index supports that a high academic profile as measured by traditional metrics is not necessary to have a voice in the Twitter radiation oncology community.