Translating evidence to practice in the health professions: a randomized trial of Twitter vs Facebook

Author:

Tunnecliff Jacqueline1,Weiner John2,Gaida James E3,Keating Jennifer L1,Morgan Prue1,Ilic Dragan2,Clearihan Lyn4,Davies David5,Sadasivan Sivalal6,Mohanty Patitapaban7,Ganesh Shankar7,Reynolds John2,Maloney Stephen1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Physiotherapy, Monash University, Frankston, Australia

2. Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

3. Discipline of Physiotherapy and University of Canberra Research Institute for Sport and Exercise (UCRISE), University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia

4. School of Primary Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

5. Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom

6. JC School of Medicine & Health Sciences, Monash University Malaysia

7. Swami Vivekanand National Institute of Rehabilitation Training and Research, Odisha, India

Abstract

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 < .001); attrition was lower in the Facebook group (P < .001). Conclusion: Research information delivered by either Twitter or Facebook can improve clinician knowledge and promote behavior change. No differences in these outcomes were observed between the Twitter and Facebook groups. Brief social media posts are as effective as longer posts for improving knowledge and promoting behavior change. Twitter may be more useful in publicizing information and Facebook for encouraging course completion.

Funder

Monash University Strategic

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Health Informatics

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3