Dataset Information

How Should Social Media Be Used in Transplantation? A Survey of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Social media platforms are increasingly used in surgery and have shown promise as effective tools to promote deceased donation and expand living donor transplantation. There is a growing need to understand how social media-driven communication is perceived by providers in the field of transplantation. METHODS:We surveyed 299 members of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons about their use of, attitudes toward, and perceptions of social media and analyzed relationships between responses and participant characteristics. RESULTS:Respondents used social media to communicate with: family and friends (76%), surgeons (59%), transplant professionals (57%), transplant recipients (21%), living donors (16%), and waitlisted candidates (15%). Most respondents (83%) reported using social media for at least 1 purpose. Although most (61%) supported sharing information with transplant recipients via social media, 42% believed it should not be used to facilitate living donor-recipient matching. Younger age (P = 0.02) and fewer years of experience in the field of transplantation (P = 0.03) were associated with stronger belief that social media can be influential in living organ donation. Respondents at transplant centers with higher reported use of social media had more favorable views about sharing information with transplant recipients (P < 0.01), increasing awareness about deceased organ donation (P < 0.01), and advertising for transplant centers (P < 0.01). Individual characteristics influence opinions about the role and clinical usefulness of social media. CONCLUSIONS:Transplant center involvement and support for social media may influence clinician perceptions and practices. Increasing use of social media among transplant professionals may provide an opportunity to deliver high-quality information to patients.

SUBMITTER: Henderson ML

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6196114 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How Should Social Media Be Used in Transplantation? A Survey of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

Henderson Macey L ML Adler Joel T JT Van Pilsum Rasmussen Sarah E SE Thomas Alvin G AG Herron Patrick D PD Waldram Madeleine M MM Ruck Jessica M JM Purnell Tanjala S TS DiBrito Sandra R SR Holscher Courtenay M CM Haugen Christine E CE Alimi Yewande Y Konel Jonathan M JM Eno Ann K AK Garonzik Wang Jacqueline M JM Gordon Elisa J EJ Lentine Krista L KL Schaffer Randolph L RL Cameron Andrew M AM Segev Dorry L DL

Transplantation 20190301 3

<h4>Background</h4>Social media platforms are increasingly used in surgery and have shown promise as effective tools to promote deceased donation and expand living donor transplantation. There is a growing need to understand how social media-driven communication is perceived by providers in the field of transplantation.<h4>Methods</h4>We surveyed 299 members of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons about their use of, attitudes toward, and perceptions of social media and analyzed relations ...[more]

PMID: 29684002

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Despite limited oncologic benefit, contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) rates have increased in the United States over the past 15 years. CPM is often accompanied by breast reconstruction, thereby requiring an interdisciplinary approach between breast and plastic surgeons. Despite this, little is known about plastic surgeons' (PS) perspectives of CPM. The purpose of this study was to assess PS practice patterns, knowledge of CPM oncologic benefits, and perceptions of the CPM decision-making process. Methods: An electronic survey was sent to 2,642 members of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS). Questions assessed demographics, practice patterns, knowledge of CPM oncologic benefits, and perceptions of the CPM decision-making process. Results: ASPS response rate was 12.5% (n = 329). Most responders worked in private practice (69%), were male (81%) and had been in practice for ≥15 years (60%). The median number of CPM reconstructions performed per month was 2-4. Fifty-five percent of PS reported routine attendance at a breast multidisciplinary conference. Responders reported CPM discussion was most likely to be initiated by the patient (51%) followed by the breast surgeon (38%), and plastic surgeon (7.3%). According to PS, the most common reason patients choose CPM is a perceived increased contralateral cancer risk (86%). Most plastic surgeons (63%) assessed the benefits of CPM as worth the risk of additional surgery and the majority (53%) estimated the complication rate at 2X the risk of unilateral surgery. The majority (61%) of PS estimated risk of contralateral cancer in an average risk patient between <2 and 5% over 10 years, which is consistent with data reported from the current literature. Most plastic surgeons (87%) reported that there was no evidence or limited evidence for breast cancer specific survival benefit with CPM. A minority of PS (18.5%) reported discomfort with a patient's choice for CPM. Of those surgeons reporting discomfort, the most common reasons for their reservations were a concern with the risk/benefit ratio of CPM and with lack of patient understanding of expected outcomes. Common reasons for PS comfort with CPM were a respect for autonomy and non-oncologic benefits of CPM. Discussion: To our knowledge, this is the first survey reporting PS perspectives on CPM. According to PS, CPM dialogue appears to be patient driven and dominated by a perceived increased risk of contralateral cancer. Few PS reported discomfort with CPM. While many PS acknowledge both the limited oncologic benefit of CPM and the increased risk of complications, the majority have the opinion that the benefits of CPM are worth the additional risk. This apparent contradiction may be due to an appreciation of the non-oncologic benefits CPM and a desire to respect patients' choices for treatment.

Project description:BackgroundSocial media (SM) has gained importance in the health care sector as a means of communication and a source of information for physicians and patients. However, the scope of professional SM use by orthopedic and trauma surgeons remains largely unknown.ObjectiveThis study presents an overview of professional SM use among orthopedic and trauma surgeons in Germany in terms of the platforms used, frequency of use, and SM content management.MethodsWe developed a web-based questionnaire with 33 variables and 2 separate sections based on a review of current literature. This study analyzed the first section of the questionnaire and included questions on demographics, type of SM used, frequency of use, and SM content management. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (version 26.0). Subgroup analysis was performed for sex, age groups (<60 years vs ≥60 years), and type of workplace (practice vs hospital). Differences between groups were assessed with a chi-square test for categorical data.ResultsA total of 208 participants answered the questionnaire (166/208, 79.8% male), of whom 70.2% (146/208) were younger than 60 years and 77.4% (161/208) worked in a practice. All participants stated that they use SM for private and professional purposes. On average, participants used 1.6 SM platforms for professional purposes. More than half had separate SM accounts for private and professional use. The most frequently used SM platforms were messenger apps (119/200, 59.5%), employment-oriented SM (60/200, 30%), and YouTube (54/200, 27%). All other SM, including Facebook and Instagram, were only used by a minority of the participants. Women and younger participants were more likely to use Instagram (P<.001 and P=.03, respectively). The participants working in a hospital were more likely to use employment-oriented SM (P=.02) and messenger apps (P=.009) than participants working in a practice. In a professional context, 20.2% (39/193) of the participants produced their own content on SM, 24.9% (48/193) used SM daily, 39.9% (77/193) used SM during work, and 13.8% (26/188) stated that they checked the number of followers they had. Younger participants were more likely to have participated in professional SM training and to have separate private and professional accounts (P=.04 and P=.02, respectively). Younger participants tended toward increased production of their own content (P=.06).ConclusionsSM is commonly used for professional purposes by orthopedic and trauma surgeons in Germany. However, it seems that professional SM use is not exploited to its full potential, and a structured implementation into daily professional work routines is still lacking. SM can have a profound impact on medical practices and communication, so orthopedic and trauma surgeons in Germany should consider increasing their SM presence by actively contributing to SM.

Project description:BackgroundDigital media is an effective tool to enhance brand recognition and is currently referenced by more than 40% of orthopedic patients when selecting a physician. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of social media among foot and ankle (F&A) orthopedic surgeons, and the impact of that social media presence on scores of a physician-rated website (PRW).MethodsRandomly selected F&A orthopedic surgeons from all major geographical locations across the United States were identified using the AAOS.org website. Internet searches were then performed using the physician's name and the respective social media platform. A comprehensive social media use index (SMI) was created for each surgeon using a scoring system based on social media platform use. The use of individual platforms and SMI was compared to the F&A surgeon's Healthgrades scores. Descriptive statistics, unpaired Student t tests, and linear regression were used to assess the effect of social media on the PRW scores.ResultsA total of 123 board-certified F&A orthopedic surgeons were included in our study demonstrating varying social media use: Facebook (48.8%), Twitter (15.4%), YouTube (23.6%), LinkedIn (47.9%), personal website (24.4%), group website (52.9%), and Instagram (0%). The mean SMI was 2.4 ± 1.6 (range 0-7). Surgeons who used a Facebook page were older, whereas those using a group website were younger (P < .05). F&A orthopedic surgeons with a YouTube page had statistically higher Healthgrades scores compared to those without (P < .05).ConclusionF&A orthopedic surgeons underused social media platforms in their clinical practice. Among all the platforms studied, a YouTube page was the most impactful social media platform on Healthgrades scores for F&A orthopedic surgeons. Given these findings, we recommend that physicians closely monitor their digital identity and maintain a diverse social media presence including a YouTube page to promote their clinical practice.Level of evidenceLevel IV.

Project description:BackgroundThe growing social media presence in healthcare has provided physicians with new ways to engage with patients. However, foot and ankle orthopaedic surgeons have been found to underuse social media platforms despite their known benefits for patients and surgeons. Thus, this study sought to investigate the reasons for this phenomenon and to identify potential barriers to social media utilization in clinical practice.MethodsA 19-question survey was distributed to active attending physicians identified through the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society membership database. The survey included demographic, practice characteristics, and social media use questions assessed by a 5-point Likert scale. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of positive attitudes toward social media.ResultsFifty-eight surgeons were included. Most respondents were male (n = 43, 74.1%), in private practice (n = 31, 53.5%), and described their practice to be greater than 51% elective procedures (n = 46, 79.4%). The average years in practice was 14.8 years (standard deviation, SD: 10.0 years). A total of 32.8% (n = 19) of surgeons reported using social media as part of their clinical practice. Facebook (n = 19, 32.8%), a professional website or blog (n = 18, 31.0%), and LinkedIn (n = 15, 25.9%) were the most used platforms-primarily for practice marketing or brand development (n = 19, 32.8%). A total of 58.6% (n = 34) of surgeons reported they did not use social media. The primary reasons were the time commitment (n = 31, 53.5%), concerns about obscuring professional boundaries (n = 22, 37.9%), and concerns regarding confidentiality (n = 11, 19.0%). Many surgeons reported that social media positively influences foot and ankle surgery (n = 23, 39.7%), although no individual predictors for these views could be identified.ConclusionsFoot and ankle orthopaedic surgeons tended to view social media use positively, but the time investment and concerns over professionalism and confidentiality pose challenges to its use. Given the influence of a surgeon's social media identity on patient satisfaction and practice building, efforts should be made to streamline social media use for foot and ankle surgeons to establish their online presence.Level of evidenceLevel IV, cross-sectional study.

Dataset Information

How Should Social Media Be Used in Transplantation? A Survey of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

Publications

How Should Social Media Be Used in Transplantation? A Survey of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets