Professional Social Media Use Among Orthopedic and Trauma Surgeons in Germany: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire-Based Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Social media (SM) has been recognized as a professional communication tool in the field of orthopedic and trauma surgery that can enhance communication with patients and peers, and increase the visibility of research and offered services. The specific purposes of professional SM use and the benefits and concerns among orthopedic and trauma surgeons, however, remain unexplored. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to demonstrate the specific uses of different SM platforms among orthopedic and trauma surgeons in Germany as well as the advantages and concerns. METHODS: A web-based questionnaire was developed on the use of SM in a professional context by considering the current literature and the authors' topics of interest. The final questionnaire consisted of 33 questions and was distributed among German orthopedic and trauma surgeons via the mail distributor of the Berufsverband für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie (Professional Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons in Germany). The study was conducted between June and July 2022. A subgroup analysis was performed for sex (male vs female), age (<60 years vs ≥60 years), and type of workplace (practice vs hospital). RESULTS: A total of 208 participants answered the questionnaire (male: n=166, 79.8%; younger than 60 years: n=146, 70.2%). In total, all of the participants stated that they use SM for professional purposes. In contrast, the stated specific uses of SM were low. Overall, the most used platforms were employment-oriented SM, messenger apps, and Facebook. Instagram emerged as a popular choice among female participants and participants working in hospital settings. The highest specific use of SM was for professional networking, followed by receiving and sharing health-related information. The lowest specific use was for education and the acquisition of patients. Conventional websites occupied a dominating position, exceeding the use of SM across all specific uses. The key benefit of SM was professional networking. Under 50% of the participants stated that SM could be used to enhance communication with their patients, keep up-to-date, or increase their professional visibility. In total, 65.5% (112/171) of participants stated that SM use was time-consuming, 43.9% (76/173) stated that they lacked application knowledge, and 45.1% (78/173) stated that they did not know what content to post. Additionally, 52.9% (91/172) mentioned medicolegal concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, SM did not seem to be used actively in the professional context among orthopedic and trauma surgeons in Germany. The stated advantages were low, while the stated concerns were high. Adequate education and information material are needed to elucidate the possible professional applications of SM and to address legal concerns.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».