Exploring differences in perceptions around Social Media Competencies: An Expert vs. Frontline User Study

Öz

Aim: Scholarly communities increasingly interact using social media (SoMe). This study investigated curricular expectations of expert and frontline SoMe users, with the goal of identifying differences that might inform the development of a curriculum designed to teach clinicians and researchers the effective use of SoMe.
Methods: From May 15 to August 28, 2020, we recruited participants via the METRIQ study recruitment protocol. Participants were stratified into “expert” and “frontline” users based on prior experience with SoMe. “Expert” users were defined as having published SoMe research, run SoMe workshops, or through the use of a popular #SoMe account. All others were categorized as “frontline” users. Participants completed a 14-question survey (with 90 sub-questions) regarding the content, skills, and attitudes that they believed should be taught to educators or researchers new to SoMe.
Results: In total, 224 users were invited, and 184 users filled out the survey. Experts were more likely to recommend teaching clinicians to use blogs (88% vs 74%), Facebook (46% vs 32%), Instagram (51% vs 34%), Medium (16% vs 4%), Snapchat (15% vs 4%), TikTok (29% vs 12%), and Twitter (97% vs 88%) compared to frontline users. Experts were more likely to recommend SoMe to foster communities of practice (83% vs 66%), disseminate research (80% vs 67%), and promote engagement for knowledge translation (86% vs 74%) compared to frontline users.
Conclusions: There are few differences between the SoMe curricular expectations of expert vs. frontline users. These results could inform the creation of resources for teaching clinicians and researchers how to effectively use SoMe.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Social Media
• Curriculum development
• Twitter
• Academic Twitter
• MedTwitter

Sosyal Medya Yetkinliklerine Yönelik Algılar: Uzmanlar ve Ön Saftaki Klinik Çalışanların Arasındaki Farkların İncelenmesi

Öz

Amaç: Akademik topluluklar, sosyal medyayı (SoMe) kullanarak daha fazla etkileşime girmektedir. Bu çalışma, klinisyenlere, eğitimcilere ve araştırmacılara SoMe'nin etkin kullanımını öğretmek için bir eğitim programı oluşturulmasına dayanak sağlayacak uzmanlarının ve ön saftaki klinik çalışanların görüşleri arasındaki farkları incelemektedir.
Yöntem: Katılımcılar, 15 Mayıs ile 28 Ağustos 2020 tarihleri arasında METRIQ çalışma protokolü kullanılarak araştırmaya davet edilmiştir. Katılımcılar, SoMe ile önceki deneyimlerine dayalı olarak "uzman" ve "ön saf" klinik çalışan kullanıcı olarak sınıflandırılmıştır. "Uzman" kullanıcılar, SoMe araştırması yayınlayan, SoMe çalıştayları yürüten veya popüler bir #SoMe hesabı yöneten kişiler olarak tanımlanmıştır. Diğer katılımcılar ise “ön saf” olarak tanımlanmıştır. Katılımcılar, SoMe'de yeni olan eğitimcilere veya araştırmacılara öğretilmesi gerektiğine inandıkları bilgi, beceri ve tutumlarla ilgili 14 soruluk bir anketi (90 alt soruyla) yanıtlamıştır.
Bulgular: Toplamda 224 kullanıcıya anket linki gönderilmiş ve 184 kullanıcı anketi doldurmuştur. Uzmanların ön saf kullanıcılara kıyasla blog (%88'e karşı %74), Facebook (%46'ya karşı %32), Instagram (%51'e karşı %34), Medium (%16'ya karşı %4), Snapchat (%15'e karşı %4), TikTok (%29'a karşı %12) ve Twitter (%97'ye karşı %88) platformlarını öğretmeyi önerme olasılıkları daha yüksek bulunmuştur. Uzmanların, ön saf kullanıcılara kıyasla uygulama topluluklarını teşvik etmek (%83'e karşı %66), araştırmaların yaygın etkisini genişletmek (%80'e karşı %67) ve bilgi dönüşümü için katılımını teşvik etmek (%86'ya karşı %74) maddelerinde SoMe'yi önerme olasılıkları daha yüksek bulunmuştur.
Sonuç: Uzman ve ön saf klinik çalışanların SoMe eğitim programına yönelik beklentileri arasındaki farklar önemsiz derecede azdır. Bu sonuçlar, klinisyenlere, eğitimcilere ve araştırmacılara SoMe'nin nasıl etkin bir şekilde kullanılacağını öğretmek için kaynakların oluşturulması konusunda bilgi verebilir. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sosyal Medya
• Eğitim Programı Geliştirme
• Twitter
• Akademik Twitter
• MedTwitter

Kaynakça

1. 1. Grock A, Bhalerao A, Chan TM, Thoma B, Wescott AB, Trueger NS. Systematic Online Academic Resource (SOAR) Review: Renal and Genitourinary. AEM Educ Train. 2019;3(4):375–86.
2. 2. Cheston CC, Flickinger TE, Chisolm MS. Social media use in medical education: a systematic review. Acad Med J Assoc Am Med Coll. 2013 Jun;88(6):893–901.
3. 3. Choo EK, Ranney ML, Chan TM, Trueger NS, Walsh AE, Tegtmeyer K, et al. Twitter as a tool for communication and knowledge exchange in academic medicine: A guide for skeptics and novices. Med Teach. 2015 May;37(5):411–6.
4. 4. Lu D, Ruan B, Lee M, Yilmaz Y, Chan TM. Good practices in harnessing social media for scholarly discourse, knowledge translation, and education. Perspect Med Educ. 2021 Jan 1;10(1):23–32.
5. 5. Luc JGY, Ouzounian M, Bender EM, Blitz A, Stamp NL, Varghese TK, et al. The Thoracic Surgery Social Media Network: Early Experience and Lessons Learned. Ann Thorac Surg. 2019 Oct;108(4):1248–55.
6. 6. Luc JGY, Varghese TK, Antonoff MB. Participating in a TweetChat: Practical Tips From The Thoracic Surgery Social Media Network (#TSSMN). Ann Thorac Surg. 2019 Mar;107(3):e229–33.
7. 7. Luc JGY, Antonoff MB. Live Tweet The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Annual Meeting: How to Leverage Twitter to Maximize Your Conference Experience. Ann Thorac Surg. 2018 Dec;106(6):1597–601.
8. 8. Luc JGY, Antonoff MB. A Call to Action: Ensure the Accuracy of Your Professional Online Image. Ann Thorac Surg. 2020 May;109(5):1628.

9. 9. Luc JGY, Antonoff MB. A Cardiothoracic Surgeon’s Playbook for Social Media and Digital Scholarship. Innovations. 2020 Sep 1;15(5):416–22.
10. 10. Ramakrishnan M, Sparks MA, Farouk SS. Training the Public Physician: The Nephrology Social Media Collective Internship. Semin Nephrol. 2020 May 1;40(3):320–7.
11. 11. Luc JGY, Archer MA, Arora RC, Bender EM, Blitz A, Cooke DT, et al. The Thoracic Surgery Social Media Network Experience During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Ann Thorac Surg. 2020 Oct;110(4):1103–7.
12. 12. Prager R, Pratte MT, Unni RR, Bala S, Ng Fat Hing N, Wu K, et al. Content Analysis and Characterization of Medical Tweets During the Early Covid-19 Pandemic. Cureus [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 Apr 12];13(2). Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8007019/
13. 13. Rosenberg H, Syed S, Rezaie S. The Twitter pandemic: The critical role of Twitter in the dissemination of medical information and misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Can J Emerg Med. 2020 Jul;22(4):418–21.
14. 14. Vervoort D, Ma X, Luc JGY, Zieroth S. Rapid Scholarly Dissemination and Cardiovascular Community Engagement to Combat the Infodemic of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Can J Cardiol. 2020 Jun 1;36(6):969.e1-969.e2.
15. 15. Chan TM, Stukus D, Leppink J, Duque L, Bigham BL, Mehta N, et al. Social Media and the 21st-Century Scholar: How You Can Harness Social Media to Amplify Your Career. J Am Coll Radiol JACR. 2018;15(1 Pt B):142–8.
16. 16. Chan TM, Stehman C, Gottlieb M, Thoma B. A Short History of Free Open Access Medical Education. The Past, Present, and Future. Sch. 2020 Jun 1;1(2):87–100.
17. 17. D’Souza K, Henningham L, Zou R, Huang J, O’Sullivan E, Last J, et al. Attitudes of Health Professional Educators Toward the Use of Social Media as a Teaching Tool: Global Cross-Sectional Study. JMIR Med Educ. 2017 Aug 4;3(2):e6429.
18. 18. Kind T, Patel PD, Lie D, Chretien KC. Twelve tips for using social media as a medical educator. Med Teach. 2014 Apr 1;36(4):284–90.
19. 19. Ruan B, Yilmaz Y, Lu D, Lee M, Chan TM. Defining the Digital Self: A Qualitative Study to Explore the Digital Component of Professional Identity in the Health Professions. J Med Internet Res. 2020 Sep 29;22(9):e21416.
20. 20. Carvalho AA, Aguiar C. Impact of Podcasts in Teacher Education: from consumers to producers. In Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE); 2009 [cited 2021 Apr 11]. p. 2473–80. Available from: https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/31004/
21. 21. Thoma B, Paddock M, Purdy E, Sherbino J, Milne WK, Siemens M, et al. Leveraging a Virtual Community of Practice to Participate in a Survey-based Study: A Description of the METRIQ Study Methodology. AEM Educ Train. 2017;1(2):110–3.
22. 22. Cabrera D, Vartabedian BS, Spinner RJ, Jordan BL, Aase LA, Timimi FK. More Than Likes and Tweets: Creating Social Media Portfolios for Academic Promotion and Tenure. J Grad Med Educ. 2017 Aug 1;9(4):421–5.
23. 23. Hillman T, Sherbino J. Social media in medical education: a new pedagogical paradigm? Postgrad Med J. 2015 Oct;91(1080):544–5.
24. 24. Roy D, Taylor J, Cheston CC, Flickinger TE, Chisolm MS. Social Media: Portrait of an Emerging Tool in Medical Education. Acad Psychiatry J Am Assoc Dir Psychiatr Resid Train Assoc Acad Psychiatry. 2016 Feb;40(1):136–40.
25. 25. Sherbino J, Arora VM, Van Melle E, Rogers R, Frank JR, Holmboe ES. Criteria for social media-based scholarship in health professions education. Postgrad Med J. 2015 Oct;91(1080):551–5.
26. 26. Chan TM, Dzara K, Dimeo SP, Bhalerao A, Maggio LA. Social media in knowledge translation and education for physicians and trainees: a scoping review. Perspect Med Educ. 2020 Feb 1;9(1):20–30.
27. 27. Willis GB, Artino AR Jr. What Do Our Respondents Think We’re Asking? Using Cognitive Interviewing to Improve Medical Education Surveys. J Grad Med Educ. 2013 Sep 1;5(3):353–6.
28. 28. Chan T, Trueger NS, Roland D, Thoma B. Evidence-based medicine in the era of social media: Scholarly engagement through participation and online interaction. CJEM. 2018 Jan;20(1):3–8.
29. 29. Luc JGY, Archer MA, Arora RC, Bender EM, Blitz A, Cooke DT, et al. Social Media Improves Cardiothoracic Surgery Literature Dissemination: Results of a Randomized Trial. Ann Thorac Surg. 2020;109(2):589–95.
30. 30. Maggio LA, Leroux TC, Meyer HS, Artino AR. #MedEd: exploring the relationship between altmetrics and traditional measures of dissemination in health professions education. Perspect Med Educ. 2018;7(4):239–47.
31. 31. Sathianathen NJ, Lane Iii R, Murphy DG, Loeb S, Bakker C, Lamb AD, et al. Social Media Coverage of Scientific Articles Immediately After Publication Predicts Subsequent Citations - #SoME_Impact Score: Observational Analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2020 Apr 17;22(4):e12288.
32. 32. Husain A, Repanshek Z, Singh M, Ankel F, Beck-Esmay J, Cabrera D, et al. Consensus Guidelines for Digital Scholarship in Academic Promotion. West J Emerg Med. 2020 Jul 8;21(4):883–91.
33. 33. Antonoff MB. Thoracic Surgery Social Media Network: Bringing Thoracic Surgery Scholarship to Twitter. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015 Aug;100(2):383–4.
34. 34. Brown J, Ryan C, Harris A. How doctors view and use social media: a national survey. J Med Internet Res. 2014 Dec 2;16(12):e267.
35. 35. Denecke K, Bamidis P, Bond C, Gabarron E, Househ M, Lau AYS, et al. Ethical Issues of Social Media Usage in Healthcare. Yearb Med Inform. 2015 Aug 13;10(1):137–47.
36. 36. Logghe HJ, Boeck MA, Gusani NJ, Hardaway JC, Hughes KA, Mouawad NJ, et al. Best Practices for Surgeons’ Social Media Use: Statement of the Resident and Associate Society of the American College of Surgeons. J Am Coll Surg. 2018 Mar;226(3):317–27.
37. 37. Professional Use of Digital and Social Media: ACOG Committee Opinion, Number 791. Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Oct;134(4):e117–21.
38. 38. Schoenbrunner A, Gosman A, Bajaj AK. Framework for the Creation of Ethical and Professional Social Media Content. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 Jul;144(1):118e–25e.
39. 39. Varghese TK, Entwistle JW, Mayer JE, Moffatt-Bruce SD, Sade RM, Cardiothoracic Ethics Forum. Ethical Standards for Cardiothoracic Surgeons’ Participation in Social Media. Ann Thorac Surg. 2019 Sep;108(3):666–70.
40. 40. Dave NN, Sparks MA, Farouk SS. An introduction and guide to becoming a social media savvy nephrologist. Nephrol Dial Transplant [Internet]. 2020 May 8 [cited 2021 Apr 11];(gfaa067). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfaa067
41. 41. Sparks MA, Lerma EV, Kupin W, Phelan PJ, Jhaveri KD, Topf J. NephMadness 2015: Nephrology as a Cornerstone of Medicine. Am J Kidney Dis. 2015 Mar 1;65(3):375–7.
42. 42. Sparks MA, Topf JM. NephMadness After 5 Years: A Recap and Game Plan for the Future. Am J Kidney Dis. 2018 Mar 1;71(3):299–301.
43. 43. Stoneman S, Hiremath S. Twitter-Based Journal Clubs: Bringing Critical Appraisal to the Social Table. Semin Nephrol. 2020 May 1;40(3):264–72.
44. 44. Topf JM, Sparks MA, Iannuzzella F, Lerma E, Oates T, Phelan PJ, et al. Twitter-Based Journal Clubs: Additional Facts and Clarifications. J Med Internet Res. 2015 Sep 16;17(9):e4639.
45. 45. Vervoort D, Luc JG. Hashtag Global Surgery: The Role of Social Media in Advancing the Field of Global Surgery. Cureus. 2020 Jun 6;12(6):e8468.
46. 46. Luc JGY, Archer MA, Arora RC, Bender EM, Blitz A, Cooke DT, et al. Does Tweeting Improve Citations? One-Year Results from the TSSMN Prospective Randomized Trial. Ann Thorac Surg. 2020 Jun 3;
47. 47. Hughes KA. #ILookLikeASurgeon goes viral: How it happened. Bull Am Coll Surg. 2015 Nov;100(11):10–6.
48. 48. DiBrito SR, Lopez CM, Jones C, Mathur A. Reducing Implicit Bias: Association of Women Surgeons #HeForShe Task Force Best Practice Recommendations. J Am Coll Surg. 2019 Mar;228(3):303–9.
49. 49. Jgy L, Nl S, Mb A. Social Media as a Means of Networking and Mentorship: Role for Women in Cardiothoracic Surgery. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018 Jul 29;30(4):487–95.
50. 50. Stamp NL, Luc JGY, Ouzounian M, Bhatti F, Hici TN, Antonoff MB. Social media as a tool to rewrite the narrative for women in cardiothoracic surgery. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2019 Jun 1;28(6):831–7.