| Literature DB >> 28710054 |
Damian Roland1, Jesse Spurr2, Daniel Cabrera3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Online communities of practice (oCoPs) may emerge from interactions on social media. These communities offer an open digital space and flat role hierarchy for information sharing and provide a strong group identity, rapid flow of information, content curation, and knowledge translation. To date, there is only a small body of evidence in medicine or health care to verify the existence of an oCoP.Entities:
Keywords: #FOAMed; Twitter; community networks; community of practice; network; social media
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28710054 PMCID: PMC5533942 DOI: 10.2196/jmir.7072
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Internet Res ISSN: 1438-8871 Impact factor: 5.428
Aveling’s core components of clinical communities of practice and their relationship with Wenger’s classic definition.
| Composite | Aveling core components of clinical communitiesa | #FOAMed proof | Wenger |
| A1C | Consists of interdependent groups and individuals | The #FOAMed hashtag connects individuals who demonstrate interactions with each other. Over time, influencers increase in number and become divergent rather than convergent. | Community |
| A2C | Consists of members who may cross clinical and organizational boundaries | #FOAMed hashtag is used by a variety of individuals and organizations. Over time, geographic area of use increases. | Community |
| A3D | Consists of members united by a common purpose of bridging the gap between best scientific evidence and current clinical practice | Content of #FOAMed remains around health care-related themes, centered on creation and access to content. | Domain |
| A4CDP | Consists of members who come together not only to learn or share knowledge but to achieve those aims | Discussion around #FOAMed results in positive attributions regarding content. | Community, domain, practice |
| A5DCP | Exploits the networks’ inherent potential for effective and low-cost knowledge generation and diffusion | #FOAMed generates subnetworks around individuals or content nodes (such as specific websites). | Domain, community, practice |
| A6C | Operates through both vertical and lateral structures | The network expands through increasing individuals who influence others across increasingly wide geographic areas. | Community |
| A7CP | Deploys peer influence and uses primarily informal, social control mechanisms to achieve change | Key nodes exert influence, but this changes through time. | Community, practice |
| A8P | Harnesses the power of the community and its collective wisdom when seeking solutions to problems; includes contextual factors and local solutions | Interactions (measured through mentions) expand rather than contract over time. | Practice |
aAdapted from Aveling et al [12]. Used with permission.
bData from Wenger [6].
Metrics of the Twitter hashtag #FOAMeda.
| Metric | Total | No. per month | No. per week | No. per day | No. per hour |
| Tweets | 429,606 | 14,132 | 3298 | 471 | 20 |
| Users who tweeted | 49,459 | 1627 | 380 | 54 | 2 |
| Tweets per user | 8.69 | 0.29 | 0.07 | 9.52×10−3 | 3.97×10−4 |
| Impressions | 1.26×109 | 4.14×107 | 9.66×106 | 1.38×106 | 5.75×104 |
| Impressions per user | 25,447 | 837 | 195 | 28 | 1 |
aHashtag activity was monitored from March 1, 2013, through August 31, 2015.
Figure 1Tweet activity (number of tweets per day) using the #FOAMed hashtag from March 1, 2013, through August 31, 2015.
Figure 2Cumulative number of users participating in the #FOAMed community.
Twitter engagement metrics for the #FOAMed hashtaga.
| User activity by no. of tweets | Total users, n (%) | Proportion of all tweets, % |
| 1 | 27,635 (55.71) | 6.43 |
| 2 | 7078 (14.27) | 3.30 |
| 3 | 3703 (7.46) | 2.59 |
| 4 | 2103 (4.24) | 1.96 |
| 5 | 1366 (2.75) | 1.59 |
| 6 | 1011 (2.04) | 1.41 |
| 7 | 698 (1.41) | 1.14 |
| 8 | 602 (1.21) | 1.12 |
| 9 | 454 (0.92) | 0.95 |
| 10 | 382 (0.77) | 0.89 |
| 11 | 326 (0.66) | 0.83 |
| 12 | 269 (0.54) | 0.75 |
| 13 | 229 (0.46) | 0.69 |
| 14 | 182 (0.37) | 0.59 |
| 15 | 164 (0.33) | 0.57 |
| 16 | 164 (0.33) | 0.61 |
| 17 | 145 (0.29) | 0.57 |
| 18 | 122 (0.25) | 0.51 |
| 19 | 118 (0.24) | 0.52 |
| 20 | 110 (0.22) | 0.51 |
| >20 | 2603 (5.25) | 72.45 |
aTotal tweets, 429,606; total number of users who tweeted, 49,459.
Figure 3Partial graphic depiction of the centrality metrics of the top 100 #FOAMed users based on weight (defined by mentions, hub, and authority quotients).
Figure 4Conversation identifier depicting frequency and strength of interaction among top members of the #FOAMed community.
Geographic location of #FOAMed community members (n=9502)a.
| Country | n (%) |
| United States | 4137 (43.5) |
| United Kingdom | 1926 (20.3) |
| Australia | 820 (8.6) |
| Canada | 797 (8.4) |
| Spain | 434 (4.6) |
| Russia | 384 (4.0) |
| Brazil | 270 (2.8) |
| Mexico | 270 (2.8) |
| India | 264 (2.8) |
| Saudi Arabia | 200 (2.1) |
aNot all users self-identified their locations.