Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32820414›Full record

ArticlePerspectives on medical education2021

Good practices in harnessing social media for scholarly discourse, knowledge translation, and education.

Daniel Lu, Brandon Ruan, Mark Lee, Yusuf Yilmaz, Teresa M Chan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Perspectives on medical education, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Twitter trends in #Parasitology determined by text mining and topic modelling.Current research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Do small baby units improve extremely premature infant outcomes?Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2022
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Instagram as a virtual art display for medical students.Canadian medical education journal · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

5 authors.

Daniel LuDepartment of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5206-3554
Brandon RuanMcMaster Education Research, Innovation, and Theory (MERIT) unit, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7581-5226
Mark LeeMcMaster Education Research, Innovation, and Theory (MERIT) unit, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1264-3260
Yusuf YilmazMcMaster Education Research, Innovation, and Theory (MERIT) unit, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4378-4418
Teresa M ChanMcMaster Education Research, Innovation, and Theory (MERIT) unit, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. teresa.chan@medportal.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6104-462X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThere still remains a gap between those who conduct science and those who engage in educating others about health sciences through various forms of social media. Few empirical studies have sought to define useful practices for engaging in social media for academic use in the health professions. Given the increasing importance of these platforms, we sought to define good practices and potential pitfalls with help of those respected for their work in this new field.

methodsWe conducted a qualitative study, guided by constructivist grounded theory principles, of 17 emerging experts in the field of academic social media. We engaged in a snowball sampling technique and conducted a series of semi-structured interviews. The analytic team consisted of a diverse group of researchers with a range of experience in social media.

resultsUnderstanding the strengths of various platforms was deemed to be of critical importance across all the participants. Key to building online engagement were the following: 1) Culture-building strategies; 2) Tailoring the message; 3) Responsiveness; and 4) Heeding rules of online engagement. Several points of caution were noted within our participants' interviews. These were grouped into caveat emptor and the need for critical appraisal, and common pitfalls when broadcasting one's self. DISCUSSION: Our participants were able to share a number of key practices that are central to developing and sharing educational content via social media. The findings from the study may guide future practitioners seeking to enter the space. These good practices support professionals for effective engagement and knowledge translation without being harmed.

Indexed as

Fellowships and ScholarshipsGrounded TheoryHumansQualitative ResearchSocial MediaTranslational Research, BiomedicalEducationKnowledge TranslationScholarly DiscourseSocial media

Identifiers

PMID32820414
PMCPMC7439800

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.