MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3191749973 · doi:10.2196/18483

Using Social Media as a Research Tool for a Bespoke Web-Based Platform for Stakeholders of Children With Congenital Anomalies: Development Study

2021· article· en· W3191749973 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marlene Sinclair, Julie E.M. McCullough, David J. Elliott, Paula Braz, Clara Cavero‐Carbonell, Lesley Dornan, Anna Jamry‐Dziurla, Ana João Santos, Anna Latos‐Bieleńska, Ausenda Machado, Lucía Páramo‐Rodríguez

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Pediatrics and Parenting · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media in Health Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUlster UniversityEuropean Commission
KeywordsBespokeSocial mediaStakeholderCoproductionCreativityStakeholder engagementPublic relationsPsychologyMedical educationBusinessMedicinePolitical scienceWorld Wide WebAdvertisingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Limited research evidence exists on the development of web-based platforms for reciprocal communication, coproduction research, and dissemination of information among parents, professionals, and researchers. This paper provides learning and the outcomes of setting up a bespoke web-based platform using social media. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore the establishment of a web-based, multicontextual research communication platform for parents and stakeholders of children with congenital anomalies using social media and to identify associated research and ethical and technical challenges. METHODS: The ConnectEpeople e-forum was developed using social media platforms with a stakeholder engagement process. A multilevel approach was implemented for reciprocal engagement between parents of children with congenital anomalies, researchers, health care professionals, and other stakeholders using private and invisible and public Facebook groups, closed Twitter groups, and YouTube. Ethical approval was obtained from Ulster University. RESULTS: Nonprofit organizations (N=128) were invited to engage with an initial response rate of 16.4% (21/128). Of the 105 parents contacted, 32 entered the private and invisible Facebook groups to participate in the coproduction research. Public Facebook page followers rose to 215, a total of 22 posts had an engagement of >10%, and 34 posts had a reach of over 100. Webinars included requested information on childhood milestones and behavior. YouTube coverage included 106 ConnectEpeople videos with 28,708 impressions. Project information was obtained from 35 countries. The highest Facebook activity occurred during the early morning hours. Achievement of these results required dedicated time management, social media expertise, creativity, and sharing knowledge to curate valuable content. CONCLUSIONS: Building and maintaining a multilayered online forum for coproduction and information sharing is challenging. Technical considerations include understanding the functionality and versatility of social media metrics. Social media offers valuable, easily accessible, quantitative, and qualitative data that can drive the reciprocal process of forum development. The identification and integration of the needs of the ConnectEpeople e-forum was a key driver in the dissemination of useful, meaningful, and accessible information. The necessary dedicated administration to respond to requests and posts and collate data required significant time and effort. Participant safety, the development of trust, and the maintenance of confidentiality were major ethical considerations. Discussions on social media platforms enabled parents to support each other and their children. Social media platforms are particularly useful in identifying common family needs related to early childhood development. This research approach was challenging but resulted in valuable outputs requiring further application and testing. This may be of particular importance in response to COVID-19 or future pandemics. Incorporating flexible, adaptable social media strategies into research projects is recommended to develop effective platforms for collaborative and impactful research and dissemination.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.374
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.083 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Pediatrics and ParentingSame topicSocial Media in Health EducationFrench-language works237,207