Teledermatology via a Social Networking Web Site: A Pilot Study Between a General Hospital and a Rural Clinic

García‐Romero, María Teresa; Prado, Fernanda Oliveira; Domínguez‐Cherit, Judith; Hojyo-Tomomka, Maria Teresa; Arenas, Roberto

doi:10.1089/tmj.2011.0038

Cited by 21 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As there are no standard accepted quality scales for studies of proportions [125], only quantitative studies (including mixed methods) were evaluated. Using this Downs and Black instrument [123], the maximum total score that could be achieved was 32, but the scores of the studies in this review ranged from 3 [89] to 22 [121]. Overall, the studies scored low using this scale as they were mainly exploratory and descriptive with three intervention studies [43,112,121] and one randomized controlled trial (RCT) [45].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A New Dimension of Health Care: Systematic Review of the Uses, Benefits, and Limitations of Social Media for Health Communication

Moorhead¹,

Hazlett²,

Harrison³

et al. 2013

J Med Internet Res

2,039

1,477

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThere is currently a lack of information about the uses, benefits, and limitations of social media for health communication among the general public, patients, and health professionals from primary research.ObjectiveTo review the current published literature to identify the uses, benefits, and limitations of social media for health communication among the general public, patients, and health professionals, and identify current gaps in the literature to provide recommendations for future health communication research.MethodsThis paper is a review using a systematic approach. A systematic search of the literature was conducted using nine electronic databases and manual searches to locate peer-reviewed studies published between January 2002 and February 2012.ResultsThe search identified 98 original research studies that included the uses, benefits, and/or limitations of social media for health communication among the general public, patients, and health professionals. The methodological quality of the studies assessed using the Downs and Black instrument was low; this was mainly due to the fact that the vast majority of the studies in this review included limited methodologies and was mainly exploratory and descriptive in nature. Seven main uses of social media for health communication were identified, including focusing on increasing interactions with others, and facilitating, sharing, and obtaining health messages. The six key overarching benefits were identified as (1) increased interactions with others, (2) more available, shared, and tailored information, (3) increased accessibility and widening access to health information, (4) peer/social/emotional support, (5) public health surveillance, and (6) potential to influence health policy. Twelve limitations were identified, primarily consisting of quality concerns and lack of reliability, confidentiality, and privacy.ConclusionsSocial media brings a new dimension to health care as it offers a medium to be used by the public, patients, and health professionals to communicate about health issues with the possibility of potentially improving health outcomes. Social media is a powerful tool, which offers collaboration between users and is a social interaction mechanism for a range of individuals. Although there are several benefits to the use of social media for health communication, the information exchanged needs to be monitored for quality and reliability, and the users’ confidentiality and privacy need to be maintained. Eight gaps in the literature and key recommendations for future health communication research were provided. Examples of these recommendations include the need to determine the relative effectiveness of different types of social media for health communication using randomized control trials and to explore potential mechanisms for monitoring and enhancing the quality and reliability of health communication using social media. Further robust and comprehensive evaluation and review, using a range of methodologies, are required to establish w...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A New Dimension of Health Care: Systematic Review of the Uses, Benefits, and Limitations of Social Media for Health Communication

Moorhead¹,

Hazlett²,

Harrison³

et al. 2013

J Med Internet Res

2,039

1,477

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…28 As telemedicine has grown, so has the use of social media tools to create virtual clinics. 29 Finally, hospitals have long recognized the power of social media as a tool for marketing and engagement of their patient base. Physician practices are also using Facebook pages, Twitter accounts, and blogs in hopes to grow their practice and earn patient referrals.…”

Section: Circulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Media and Clinical Care

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When .04 12 (8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14) ,.001 12 (8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20) ,.001 Facebook 6 (3-8) 15 (13)(14)(15)(16)(17) 36 (28-44) 18-25 y Pamphlet 6.5 (4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10) .02 11 (7.5-14) .02 12 (8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20) ,.001 .86 11 (11)(12) .02 16 (12)(13)(14)(15)…”

Section: Resultsunclassified

“…These web sites, with large user bases, allow user-created content to be streamed for free over the Internet and have been effectively used for patient-physician interactions. 10 As such, the goal of the present study was to determine whether use of social media in addition to standard counseling is more effective at improving patient knowledge, satisfaction, and contraceptive preference than traditional standard office counseling plus pamphlet reading. Specifically, the use of Facebook in this study was to determine the feasibility of providing vital health information in a more modern form and the effect that this presentation would have on contraceptive knowledge among patients.…”

Section: Level Of Evidence: Imentioning

confidence: 99%