CDC National Conference on Health Communication, Marketing and Media 2010
Download as PPT, PDF1 like496 views
This document summarizes a study exploring the use of Web 2.0 social technologies like wikis to facilitate collaboration among an interdisciplinary biomedical research community. It describes the background and increasing popularity of social media. The study involved setting up a wiki for a 13-member research group to analyze usage and gather perceptions. Results found barriers to adoption included time constraints and technical skills, while benefits included easier information sharing and organization. Ongoing analysis of usage and surveys over 12 months will provide more insights into the impacts of social technologies on research collaboration.
More Related Content
Similar to CDC National Conference on Health Communication, Marketing and Media 2010 (20)
CDC National Conference on Health Communication, Marketing and Media 2010
- 1. + CDC National Conference Health Communication, Marketing & Media August 18, 2010 Using Web 2.0 Social Technology to Build a Cyber-infrastructure for an Interdisciplinary Biomedical Research Community of Practice
- 2. + Background: Read/Write Web Gaining Popularity Web 2.0 social technologies enable and facilitate social networking, participation, communication, and knowledge sharing. They aid in the creation of an organic knowledge base for a Community of Practice (CoP), built as a byproduct of team collaboration.
- 3. + Background: Read/Write Web Gaining Popularity A new generation of the Internet advances to platform Service--‐as--‐a--‐Software (SaaS) solutions. Facebook usage increased 700%, and Twitter usage increased 3,712% from 4/2009 to 4/2010. Social media usage increases 15% among Inc. 500 companies. 69% of McKinsey survey respondents report measureable benefits of Web 2.0 social technologies in business. Technology experts responding to a Pew survey believe innovative online cooperation could result in more efficient for--‐profit, non--‐profit, and government agencies by 2020, but they express concern over resistance to change.
- 4. + Background: Read/Write Web Gaining Popularity Email is recognized as the number one social software application. Web 2.0 popularity will grow as “Net generation” knowledge workers enter the workforce. Although the importance of multidisciplinary health care research and accompanying funding opportunities continues to increase, few evidence--‐based results of Web 2.0 social technology use in health care are available.
- 5. + Purpose: Web 2.0 in Healthcare The goal of this study is to evaluate the utility of Web 2.0 social technology for health care research by investigating the viability, and then analyzing the use and associated opinions of research team members to ascertain benefits for and barriers to improved collaboration, knowledge sharing and communication.
- 6. + Methods: Exploring Innovations in Peer-to-Peer Collaboration The study explored innovative methods to facilitate collaboration, knowledge sharing, and communication among a 13--‐member multidisciplinary biomedical research Community of Practice (CoP) comprised of faculty and resident physicians, staff, and students from two major southwestern universities and an institute of brain research.
- 7. + Methods: Exploring Innovations in Peer-to-Peer Collaboration Identified strengths and weaknesses of Web 2.0 social technologies using a SWOT analysis Determined a Web 2.0 social technology platform based on authors’ selection criteria Architected a basic wiki with user-friendly interface, and then invited and trained users Analyzed CoP email and wiki usage Administered a survey using Survey Monkey to obtain CoP perceptions Analyzed 3--‐month baseline data
- 8. + Results: Determining a Web 2.0 Platform
- 9. + Results: Determining a Web 2.0 Platform
- 10. + Results: Determining a Web 2.0 Platform Wiki Analytics Over 50% of CoP members invited to access the wiki were faculty and resident physicians. Of the 13 members invited, eight (69%) accessed the wiki. Of those that accessed the wiki, 14% created a page, and 43% edited, commented, or uploaded an attachment. 36% of CoP members emailed information to the wiki administrator instead of uploading to the wiki.
- 11. + Results: Determining a Web 2.0 Platform Survey Results Six members (46%) completed the survey. 83% were 50 years‐of‐age or older. 50% were faculty and resident physicians. 100% indicated comfort logging on. 83% felt comfortable editing a page. 50% felt comfortable using the search box. 33% felt comfortable creating a page.
- 12. + Results: Determining a Web 2.0 Platform
- 13. + Results: Determining a Web 2.0 Platform
- 14. + Discussion: Pilot Study Usage and Trends This study examined 3‐month baseline findings of a longitudinal, 12‐month project. Barriers to adoption and usage: University and professional culture Time constraints for physicians Various levels of technical savvy Inoperable with universities’ MOSS Sharepoint software Users’ comfort level Scheduling training University IT concern over safety of protected health information (PHI)
- 15. + Discussion: Pilot Study Usage and Trends This study examined 3‐month baseline findings of a longitudinal, 12‐month project. Benefits to adoption and usage: Increase university awareness of the capabilities of Web 2.0 social technologies No additional cost to universities IT assistance not required; easily implemented without programming expertise Asynchronous communication to bridge gaps in time and location Shared resources and knowledge Real‐time documentation and project management CoP members perceive wiki is more efficient than email for sharing, organizing and finding information The easier the task, the more likely CoP members use the wiki
- 16. + Limitations and Future Direction: To be continued Ongoing research for CBPR and resident research teams Limitations: A relatively small number of committee members and access to only preliminary baseline data placed certain limitations on the ability to draw conclusions and make inferences from results. Future Direction: Analyzing committee email and wiki usage and repeating the survey subsequent to wiki implementation after 6--‐ and 12--‐months will aid in evaluation. Additional outcome measures are recommended.
- 17. + Limitations and Future Direction: To be continued Ongoing research for CBPR and resident research teams Authors have initiated a similar study for a Community‐ based Participatory Research (CBPR) CoP looking at “Aging in Place.” A comparison of results between the current project could show trends. Another study is looking at seven resident research teams adopting a wiki for team group projects. Further evidence‐based investigation of Web 2.0 social technologies for peer‐to‐peer (P2P) collaboration and communication in health care research are necessary.
- 18. + Links and References or more author information about enterprise 2.0 KMRM.com ow Companies are Benefiting from Web 2.0 McKinseyQuarterly.com/Business_Technology.com he Impact of the Internet on Institutions Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project PewResearch.org sing Web 2.0 for Health Care Research and Education Eysenbach, G. Medicine 2.0: social networking, collaboration, participation, apomediation, and openness J Med Internet Res 2008; 10(3):e22 http://www.jmir.org/2008/3/e22/ oulos, K. and Wheeler, S. The emerging Web 2.0 social software: an enabling suite of sociable technologies in health and health care education Health Information & Libraries Journal 2007; 24(1):e23
- 19. + Thank You for Visiting with Me!