Navigating Personal and Professional Development Through Social Media in Ophthalmology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Although social media use among physicians skyrocketed during the COVID-19 pandemic, its role for networking, mentorship, and support among ophthalmologists remains unknown. The objective of this study was to elucidate how ophthalmologists use social media for navigating challenges related to personal and professional development. Methods: This was a cross-sectional survey study conducted during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. A 40-item questionnaire investigating the usage of social media was developed and distributed to active social media users in ophthalmology including trainees and practitioners from November 2020 to December 2020 via social media channels. Quantitative responses were analyzed using descriptive and basic statistics, while a thematic analysis was conducted to examine the qualitative responses. Results: One hundred and forty-nine respondents (67% women) completed the survey, with 56% of participants between the ages of 25-35 years old. Women were more likely to report experiencing workplace discrimination (p < 0.005) and work-life imbalance (p < 0.05) compared to men, and social media was found to be useful in addressing those challenges in addition to parenting and mentorship (p < 0.005 and p < 0.001, respectively). Compared to their older counterparts, younger ophthalmologists (<45 years old) cited more challenges with practice management (p < 0.005) and turned to social media for corresponding guidance (p < 0.05). Compared to late career ophthalmologists, trainees were more likely to report difficulties with career development (p < 0.05), practice management (p < 0.0001), and financial planning (p < 0.05), and found social media beneficial for learning financial literacy (p < 0.05). A qualitative analysis of the free-response texts found both positive and negative viewpoints of social media use in ophthalmology. Conclusion: Social media is an invaluable tool for enhancing professional and personal growth for ophthalmologists, particularly for women, trainees, and younger surgeons through education and community-building. Future directions include exploring how social media can be used to improve mentorship, outreach, and training in ophthalmology.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".