J Sandars1, S Schroter. 1. Medical Education Unit, The University of Leeds, 20 Hyde Terrace, Leeds LS2 9LN, UK. j.e.sandars@leeds.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To identify the current familiarity and use of Web 2.0 technologies by medical students and qualified medical practitioners, and to identify the barriers to its use for medical education. METHODS: A semi-structured online questionnaire survey of 3000 medical students and 3000 qualified medical practitioners (consultants, general practitioners and doctors in training) on the British Medical Association's membership database. RESULTS: All groups had high familiarity, but low use, of podcasts. Ownership of digital media players was higher among medical students. There was high familiarity, but low use, of other Web 2.0 technologies except for high use of instant messaging and social networking by medical students. All groups stated that they were interested in using Web 2.0 technologies for education but there was lack of knowledge and skills in how to use these new technologies. CONCLUSIONS: There is an overall high awareness of a range of new Web 2.0 technologies by both medical students and qualified medical practitioners and high interest in its use for medical education. However, the potential of Web 2.0 technologies for undergraduate and postgraduate medical education will only be achieved if there is increased training in how to use this new approach.
OBJECTIVES: To identify the current familiarity and use of Web 2.0 technologies by medical students and qualified medical practitioners, and to identify the barriers to its use for medical education. METHODS: A semi-structured online questionnaire survey of 3000 medical students and 3000 qualified medical practitioners (consultants, general practitioners and doctors in training) on the British Medical Association's membership database. RESULTS: All groups had high familiarity, but low use, of podcasts. Ownership of digital media players was higher among medical students. There was high familiarity, but low use, of other Web 2.0 technologies except for high use of instant messaging and social networking by medical students. All groups stated that they were interested in using Web 2.0 technologies for education but there was lack of knowledge and skills in how to use these new technologies. CONCLUSIONS: There is an overall high awareness of a range of new Web 2.0 technologies by both medical students and qualified medical practitioners and high interest in its use for medical education. However, the potential of Web 2.0 technologies for undergraduate and postgraduate medical education will only be achieved if there is increased training in how to use this new approach.
Authors: Michael A Hall; Marina Cuttini; Andreas W Flemmer; Gorm Greisen; Neil Marlow; Andreas Schulze; Susan Smith; Adolf Valls-i-Soler; Patrick Truffert; Gráinne Conole; Maarten de Laat Journal: Eur J Pediatr Date: 2008-07-04 Impact factor: 3.183
Authors: Patrick M Archambault; France Légaré; André Lavoie; Marie-Pierre Gagnon; Jean Lapointe; Sylvie St-Jacques; Julien Poitras; Karine Aubin; Sylvain Croteau; Martin Pham-Dinh Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2010-06-11 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Amy T Wang; Nicole P Sandhu; Christopher M Wittich; Jayawant N Mandrekar; Thomas J Beckman Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2012-11-07 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Horst C Vollmar; Herbert Mayer; Thomas Ostermann; Martin E Butzlaff; John E Sandars; Stefan Wilm; Monika A Rieger Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2010-01-04 Impact factor: 7.327