MyMedR

Displaying all 5 publications

Abstract:

Sort:

Fulltext A cost-effectiveness analysis of blended versus face-to-face delivery of evidence-based medicine to medical students

Maloney S, Nicklen P, Rivers G, Foo J, Ooi YY, Reeves S, et al.

J Med Internet Res, 2015;17(7):e182.
PMID: 26197801 DOI: 10.2196/jmir.4346

Blended learning describes a combination of teaching methods, often utilizing digital technologies. Research suggests that learner outcomes can be improved through some blended learning formats. However, the cost-effectiveness of delivering blended learning is unclear.
Fulltext Translating Evidence Into Practice via Social Media: A Mixed-Methods Study

Maloney S, Tunnecliff J, Morgan P, Gaida JE, Clearihan L, Sadasivan S, et al.

J Med Internet Res, 2015 Oct 26;17(10):e242.
PMID: 26503129 DOI: 10.2196/jmir.4763

BACKGROUND: Approximately 80% of research evidence relevant to clinical practice never reaches the clinicians delivering patient care. A key barrier for the translation of evidence into practice is the limited time and skills clinicians have to find and appraise emerging evidence. Social media may provide a bridge between health researchers and health service providers.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of social media as an educational medium to effectively translate emerging research evidence into clinical practice.
METHODS: The study used a mixed-methods approach. Evidence-based practice points were delivered via social media platforms. The primary outcomes of attitude, knowledge, and behavior change were assessed using a preintervention/postintervention evaluation, with qualitative data gathered to contextualize the findings.
RESULTS: Data were obtained from 317 clinicians from multiple health disciplines, predominantly from the United Kingdom, Australia, the United States, India, and Malaysia. The participants reported an overall improvement in attitudes toward social media for professional development (P
Fulltext Continuing Professional Development via Social Media or Conference Attendance: A Cost Analysis

Maloney S, Tunnecliff J, Morgan P, Gaida J, Keating J, Clearihan L, et al.

JMIR Med Educ, 2017 Mar 30;3(1):e5.
PMID: 28360023 DOI: 10.2196/mededu.6357

BACKGROUND: Professional development is essential in the health disciplines. Knowing the cost and value of educational approaches informs decisions and choices about learning and teaching practices.

OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study was to conduct a cost analysis of participation in continuing professional development via social media compared with live conference attendance.

METHODS: Clinicians interested in musculoskeletal care were invited to participate in the study activities. Quantitative data were obtained from an anonymous electronic questionnaire.

RESULTS: Of the 272 individuals invited to contribute data to this study, 150 clinicians predominantly from Australia, United States, United Kingdom, India, and Malaysia completed the outcome measures. Half of the respondents (78/150, 52.0%) believed that they would learn more with the live conference format. The median perceived participation costs for the live conference format was Aus $1596 (interquartile range, IQR 172.50-2852.00). The perceived cost of participation for equivalent content delivered via social media was Aus $15 (IQR 0.00-58.50). The majority of the clinicians (114/146, 78.1%, missing data n=4) indicated that they would pay for a subscription-based service, delivered by social media, to the median value of Aus $59.50.

CONCLUSIONS: Social media platforms are evolving into an acceptable and financially sustainable medium for the continued professional development of health professionals. When factoring in the reduced costs of participation and the reduced loss of employable hours from the perspective of the health service, professional development via social media has unique strengths that challenge the traditional live conference delivery format.
Fulltext The acceptability among health researchers and clinicians of social media to translate research evidence to clinical practice: mixed-methods survey and interview study

Tunnecliff J, Ilic D, Morgan P, Keating J, Gaida JE, Clearihan L, et al.

J Med Internet Res, 2015;17(5):e119.
PMID: 25995192 DOI: 10.2196/jmir.4347

BACKGROUND: Establishing and promoting connections between health researchers and health professional clinicians may help translate research evidence to clinical practice. Social media may have the capacity to enhance these connections.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore health researchers' and clinicians' current use of social media and their beliefs and attitudes towards the use of social media for communicating research evidence.
METHODS: This study used a mixed-methods approach to obtain qualitative and quantitative data. Participation was open to health researchers and clinicians. Data regarding demographic details, current use of social media, and beliefs and attitudes towards the use of social media for professional purposes were obtained through an anonymous Web-based survey. The survey was distributed via email to research centers, educational and clinical institutions, and health professional associations in Australia, India, and Malaysia. Consenting participants were stratified by country and role and selected at random for semistructured telephone interviews to explore themes arising from the survey.
RESULTS: A total of 856 participants completed the questionnaire with 125 participants declining to participate, resulting in a response rate of 87.3%. 69 interviews were conducted with participants from Australia, India, and Malaysia. Social media was used for recreation by 89.2% (749/840) of participants and for professional purposes by 80.0% (682/852) of participants. Significant associations were found between frequency of professional social media use and age, gender, country of residence, and graduate status. Over a quarter (26.9%, 229/852) of participants used social media for obtaining research evidence, and 15.0% (128/852) of participants used social media for disseminating research evidence. Most participants (95.9%, 810/845) felt there was a role for social media in disseminating or obtaining research evidence. Over half of the participants (449/842, 53.3%) felt they had a need for training in the use of social media for professional development. A key barrier to the professional use of social media was concerns regarding trustworthiness of information.
CONCLUSIONS: A large majority of health researchers and clinicians use social media in recreational and professional contexts. Social media is less frequently used for communication of research evidence. Training in the use of social media for professional development and methods to improve the trustworthiness of information obtained via social media may enhance the utility of social media for communicating research evidence. Future studies should investigate the efficacy of social media in translating research evidence to clinical practice.
KEYWORDS: communication; eLearning; evidence-based medicine; social media
Fulltext Translating evidence to practice in the health professions: a randomized trial of Twitter vs Facebook

Tunnecliff J, Weiner J, Gaida JE, Keating JL, Morgan P, Ilic D, et al.

J Am Med Inform Assoc, 2017 03 01;24(2):403-408.
PMID: 27357833 DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocw085

Objective: Our objective was to compare the change in research informed knowledge of health professionals and their intended practice following exposure to research information delivered by either Twitter or Facebook.
Methods: This open label comparative design study randomized health professional clinicians to receive "practice points" on tendinopathy management via Twitter or Facebook. Evaluated outcomes included knowledge change and self-reported changes to clinical practice.
Results: Four hundred and ninety-four participants were randomized to 1 of 2 groups and 317 responders analyzed. Both groups demonstrated improvements in knowledge and reported changes to clinical practice. There was no statistical difference between groups for the outcomes of knowledge change (P = .728), changes to clinical practice (P = .11) or the increased use of research information (P = .89). Practice points were shared more by the Twitter group (P