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:BackgroundHuman brain organoids are a valuable research tool for studying brain development, physiology, and pathology. Yet, a host of potential ethical concerns are inherent in their creation. There is a growing group of bioethicists who acknowledge the moral imperative to develop brain organoid technologies and call for caution in this research. Although a relatively new technology, brain organoids and their uses are already being discussed in media literature. Media literature informs the public and policymakers but has the potential for utopian or dystopian distortions. Thus, it is important to understand how this technology is portrayed to the public.MethodsTo investigate how brain organoids are displayed to the public, we conducted a systematic review of media literature indexed in the Nexis Uni database from 2013-2019. News and media source articles passing exclusion criteria (n = 93) were scored to evaluate tone and relevant themes. Themes were validated with a pilot sample before being applied to the dataset. Thematic analysis assessed article tone, reported potential for the technology, and the scientific, social, and ethical contexts surrounding brain organoids research.ResultsBrain organoid publications became more frequent from 2013 to 2019. We observed increases in positively and negatively toned articles, suggesting growing polarization. While many sources discuss realistic applications of brain organoids, others suggest treatment and cures beyond the scope of the current technology. This could work to overhype the technology and disillusion patients and families by offering false hope. In the ethical narrative we observe a preoccupation with issues such as development of artificial consciousness and "humanization" of organoid-animal chimeras. Issues of regulation, ownership, and accuracy of the organoid models are rarely discussed.ConclusionsGiven the power that media have to inform or misinform the public, it is important this literature provides an accurate and balanced reflection of the therapeutic potential and associated ethical issues regarding brain organoid research. Our study suggests increasing polarization, coupled with misplaced and unfounded ethical concern. Given the inhibitory effects of public fear or disillusion on research funding, it is important media literature provides an accurate reflection of brain organoids.

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.

Project description:BackgroundTerms and conditions define the relationship between social media companies and users. However, these legal agreements are long and written in a complex language. It remains questionable whether users understand the terms and conditions and are aware of the consequences of joining such a network. With children from a young age interacting with social media, companies are acquiring large amounts of data, resulting in longitudinal data sets that most researchers can only dream of. The use of social media by children is highly relevant to their mental and physical health for 2 reasons: their health can be adversely affected by social media and their data can be used to conduct health research.ObjectiveThe aim of this paper is to offer an ethical analysis of how the most common social media apps and services inform users and obtain their consent regarding privacy and other issues and to discuss how lessons from research ethics can lead to trusted partnerships between users and social media companies. Our paper focuses on children, who represent a sensitive group among users of social media platforms.MethodsA thematic analysis of the terms and conditions of the 20 most popular social media platforms and the 2 predominant mobile phone ecosystems (Android and iOS) was conducted. The results of this analysis served as the basis for scoring these platforms.ResultsThe analysis showed that most platforms comply with the age requirements issued by legislators. However, the consent process during sign-up was not taken seriously. Terms and conditions are often too long and difficult to understand, especially for younger users. The same applies to age verification, which is not realized proactively but instead relies on other users who report underaged users.ConclusionsThis study reveals that social media networks are still lacking in many respects regarding the adequate protection of children. Consent procedures are flawed because they are too complex, and in some cases, children can create social media accounts without sufficient age verification or parental oversight. Adopting measures based on key ethical principles will safeguard the health and well-being of children. This could mean standardizing the registration process in accordance with modern research ethics procedures: give users the key facts that they need in a format that can be read easily and quickly, rather than forcing them to wade through chapters of legal language that they cannot understand. Improving these processes would help safeguard the mental health of children and other social media users.

Project description:BackgroundSocial media (SM) use by orthopaedic surgeons is becoming increasingly common; nonetheless, it needs to be clarified how patients perceive the content posted by physicians.PurposeTo characterize SM content posted by orthopaedic surgeons while investigating patient perceptions of this content and how it may influence their health care decisions.Study designCross-sectional study.MethodsPosts on SM outlets by orthopaedic surgeons were reviewed and categorized. A survey to assess patient perception of these categories was administered between December 2021 and February 2022 in the clinics of 3 orthopaedic surgeons. Survey results were analyzed for differences in patient SM use and perception of SM content types.ResultsThere were 250 completed surveys. SM use was high among all age groups; however, the 18 to 24 years (87.1%) and 25 to 34 years (86.4%) age groups were more likely than older age groups to report daily use (P = .002). Overall, 17% of patients reported using SM to see information about their health care at least once per month, 21% reported reviewing the SM account of a physician at least once per month, 19% reported that they were likely or very likely to view the SM account of their physician, and 23% reported that SM content was likely or very likely to influence which physician they see. Patients held the most consistently positive view of posts that educated patients, discussed sports team coverage, and provided patient testimonials. Patients had consistently neutral views of posts educating colleagues, discussing presentations at national meetings, displaying aspects of surgeons' personal lives, and supporting marginalized groups. Several post categories elicited highly polarized responses-including those discussing research publications and showing surgical techniques or pictures/videos taken during surgery. Respondents had a consistently negative response to posts making political statements.ConclusionSM is likely a useful tool to help physicians interact with patients. Physicians who wish to interact with patients should consider posting content viewed most positively-including posts educating patients, discussing sports team coverage, and providing patient testimonials. Content that is viewed less favorably should be posted sparingly or with a sensitive tag.

Dataset Information

Ethical Standards for Cardiothoracic Surgeons' Participation in Social Media.

Publications

Ethical Standards for Cardiothoracic Surgeons' Participation in Social Media.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets