MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3186752400 · doi:10.1108/lhs-06-2020-0040

Physician leaders’ cross-boundary use of social media: what are the implications in the current COVID-19 environment?

2021· review· en· W3186752400 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Scott Comber, Lisette Wilson, Scarlett Kelly, Lori McCay‐Peet

Notice bibliographique

RevueLeadership in health services · 2021
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueSocial Media in Health Education
Établissements canadiensTreasury Board of Canada SecretariatDalhousie University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésStakeholderHealth careSocial mediaPublic relationsPublic healthBoundary (topology)PsychologyConfusionMedicineMedical educationFamily medicineNursingPolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to better understand social media (SM) factors that physician leaders need to consider, as they adapt their cross-boundary practices to engage with colleagues and patients. Firstly, this study explores why SM is being used by physicians to cross horizontal (physician to physician) and stakeholder (physician to patient) boundaries prior to COVID-19. Secondly, based on the studies reviewed, this study provides insights on the practical SM implications for physician leaders working in the COVID-19 environment to actively enhance their practices, reduce public confusion and improve patient care, thus informing health-care practices. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: A systematic literature review was used to conduct a structured transparent overview of peer reviewed articles that describe physicians' use of cross-boundary SM across several disciplines (e.g. health, information science). As a baseline assessment prior to COVID-19, the review synthesized 47 articles, identified and selected from six databases and Novanet. This study used NVivo 12 to thematical code the articles, leading to the emergence of four broad factors that influence SM use. FINDINGS: A key reason noted in the literature for physicians use of SM to cross horizontal boundaries is to share knowledge. Regarding stakeholder boundaries, the most cited reasons are to improve patient's health and encourage behavioural changes. Insights garnered on the practical SM implications include the need for physicians to be stronger leaders in presenting trustworthy and consistent facts about health information to the public and fellow peers. As role models for the effective use of SM tools, physician leaders can mentor and coach their colleagues and counterparts. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: As this was a literature review, the authors did not collect primary data to further explore this rapidly changing and dynamic SM world. Next steps could include a survey to determine firstly, how physicians currently use SM in this COVID-19 environment, and secondly, how they could leverage it for their work. Findings from this survey will help us better understand the role of physician leaders as health-care influencers and how they could better create trust and inform the Canadian public in the health information that is being conveyed. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Physician leaders can play a key role in positively influencing institutional support for ethical and safe SM use and engagement practices. Physicians need to participate in developing regulations and guidelines that are fundamentally to physician leader's SM use. Central to this research would be the need to understand how physicians cross-boundary practices have changed during and potentially post COVID-19. Physician leaders also need to monitor information sources for credibility and ensure that these sources are protected. As role models for the effective use of SM tools, physician leaders can mentor and coach their colleagues and counterparts in this area. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: Although there have been studies of how physicians use SM, fewer studies explore why physician leaders' cross boundaries (horizontal and stakeholder) using SM. Important insights are gained in physician leaders practical use of SM. Key themes that emerged included: organizational and individual, information, professional and regulations and guideline factors. These factors strengthen physician leaders understanding of areas of foci to enhance their cross-boundary interactions. There is an urgency to study the complexity of SM and the effectiveness of regulations and guidelines for physicians, who are being required, at an accelerated rate, to strengthen and increase their cross-boundary practices.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Études des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,679
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,002
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0020,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,636
Tête enseignante GPT0,533
Écart entre enseignants0,103 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2021
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueLeadership in health servicesMême sujetSocial Media in Health EducationTravaux en français237 207