Family physicians' utility of social media: a survey comparison among family medicine residents and physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Social media has become ubiquitous and has brought a dramatic change in health services. Little is known about its use by family physicians and residents for personal or professional purpose. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the utility of social media among family medicine residents and consultants. METHODS: The collection of data was through the use of a five part questionnaire developed by researchers. The questionnaire was delivered to 70 physicians and 100 residents, out of which 132questionnaires were completed, representing a 78 percent response rate. RESULTS: Our findings demonstrate that there was an overall high use of social media. Females used social media more for general education and professional purposes. Men, by contrast, used it more frequently for personal purposes. The participants in this study appeared to consider social media as having several useful dimensions, such as: enabling them to accomplish job tasks, improve job performance, productivity and more effective patient care when using social media. CONCLUSIONS: To date, limited studies have compared social media use among family physicians and residents. This study may serve as an initial step for future studies explaining the pattern of use among physicians.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".