Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32795994›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2020

How Health Care Organizations Approach Social Media Measurement: Qualitative Study.

Chukwuma Ukoha

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Chukwuma UkohaCentre for Informatics and Applied Optimisation, Federation University Australia, Ballarat, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8981-3224
Federation University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany health care organizations use social media to support a variety of activities. To ensure continuous improvement in social media performance, health care organizations must measure their social media.

objectiveThe purpose of this study is to explore how health care organizations approach social media measurement and to elucidate the tools they employ.

methodsIn this exploratory qualitative research, Australian health care organizations that use social media, varying in size and locality, were invited to participate in the study. Data were collected through semistructured interviews, and the transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis.

resultsThe study identified health care organizations' approaches to social media measurement. While some measured their social media frequently, others used infrequent measurements, and a few did not measure theirs at all. Those that measured their social media used one or a combination of the following yardsticks: personal benchmarking, peer benchmarking, and metric benchmarking. The metrics tracked included one or more of the following: reach, engagement, and conversion rates. The tools employed to measure social media were either inbuilt or add-on analytics tools. Although many participants showed great interest in measuring their social media, they still had some unanswered questions.

conclusionsThe lack of a consensus approach to measurement suggests that, unlike other industries, social media measurement in health care settings is at a nascent stage. There is a need to improve knowledge, sophistication, and integration of social media strategy through the application of theoretical and analytical knowledge to help resolve the current challenge of effective social media measurement. This study calls for social media training in health care organizations. Such training must focus on how to use relevant tools and how to measure their use effectively.

Indexed as

analytics toolsbenchmarkinghealth care organizationmeasurementmetricssocial media

Identifiers

PMID32795994
PMCPMC7455874
OpenAlexW3049137357

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.