Literature DB >> 29684002

How Should Social Media Be Used in Transplantation? A Survey of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

Macey L Henderson1,2, Joel T Adler3, Sarah E Van Pilsum Rasmussen1, Alvin G Thomas1, Patrick D Herron4, Madeleine M Waldram1, Jessica M Ruck1, Tanjala S Purnell1,5, Sandra R DiBrito1, Courtenay M Holscher1, Christine E Haugen1, Yewande Alimi1, Jonathan M Konel1, Ann K Eno1, Jacqueline M Garonzik Wang1, Elisa J Gordon6, Krista L Lentine7, Randolph L Schaffer8, Andrew M Cameron1, Dorry L Segev1,5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Social media platforms are increasingly used in surgery and have shown promise as effective tools to promote deceased donation and expand living donor transplantation. There is a growing need to understand how social media-driven communication is perceived by providers in the field of transplantation.
METHODS: We surveyed 299 members of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons about their use of, attitudes toward, and perceptions of social media and analyzed relationships between responses and participant characteristics.
RESULTS: Respondents used social media to communicate with: family and friends (76%), surgeons (59%), transplant professionals (57%), transplant recipients (21%), living donors (16%), and waitlisted candidates (15%). Most respondents (83%) reported using social media for at least 1 purpose. Although most (61%) supported sharing information with transplant recipients via social media, 42% believed it should not be used to facilitate living donor-recipient matching. Younger age (P = 0.02) and fewer years of experience in the field of transplantation (P = 0.03) were associated with stronger belief that social media can be influential in living organ donation. Respondents at transplant centers with higher reported use of social media had more favorable views about sharing information with transplant recipients (P < 0.01), increasing awareness about deceased organ donation (P < 0.01), and advertising for transplant centers (P < 0.01). Individual characteristics influence opinions about the role and clinical usefulness of social media.
CONCLUSIONS: Transplant center involvement and support for social media may influence clinician perceptions and practices. Increasing use of social media among transplant professionals may provide an opportunity to deliver high-quality information to patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 29684002      PMCID: PMC6196114          DOI: 10.1097/TP.0000000000002243

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Transplantation        ISSN: 0041-1337            Impact factor:   4.939


  24 in total

1.  Mass media campaigns and organ donation: managing conflicting messages and interests.

Authors:  Mohamed Y Rady; Joan L McGregor; Joseph L Verheijde
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2012-05

2.  Social media in plastic surgery practices: emerging trends in North America.

Authors:  Chad K Wheeler; Hakim Said; Roni Prucz; Rod J Rodrich; David W Mathes
Journal:  Aesthet Surg J       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 4.283

3.  The Transplantation Journal on Social Media: The @TransplantJrnl Journey From Impact Factor to Klout Score.

Authors:  Carla C Baan; Frank J M F Dor
Journal:  Transplantation       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 4.939

4.  The social media revolution is changing the conference experience: analytics and trends from eight international meetings.

Authors:  Sarah E Wilkinson; Marnique Y Basto; Greta Perovic; Nathan Lawrentschuk; Declan G Murphy
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2015-01-26       Impact factor: 5.588

5.  Value of social media in advancing surgical research.

Authors:  J Mayol; J Dziakova
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 6.939

Review 6.  Social Media and Web Presence for Patients and Professionals: Evolving Trends and Implications for Practice.

Authors:  Jose E Barreto; Curtis L Whitehair
Journal:  PM R       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 2.298

7.  Qualitative Twitter analysis of participants, tweet strategies, and tweet content at a major urologic conference.

Authors:  Hendrik Borgmann; Jan-Henning Woelm; Axel Merseburger; Tim Nestler; Johannes Salem; Maximilian P Brandt; Axel Haferkamp; Stacy Loeb
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2016 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.862

8.  Social media and organ donor registration: the Facebook effect.

Authors:  A M Cameron; A B Massie; C E Alexander; B Stewart; R A Montgomery; N R Benavides; G D Fleming; D L Segev
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2013-06-18       Impact factor: 8.086

9.  Twitter tweets and twaddle: twittering at AHPA. National Health Promotion Conference.

Authors:  George Anderson; Suzanne Gleeson; Chris Rissel; Li Ming Wen; Karen Bedford
Journal:  Health Promot J Austr       Date:  2014-08

10.  Google analytics of a pilot mass and social media campaign targeting Hispanics about living kidney donation.

Authors:  Elisa J Gordon; Jennifer Shand; Anne Black
Journal:  Internet Interv       Date:  2016-09-20
View more
  3 in total

1.  Self-Referral Patterns of Living Kidney Donors via Social Media: Examining an Expanding Platform.

Authors:  Emily Joachim
Journal:  Kidney360       Date:  2020-12-31

2.  Is There Decreasing Public Interest in Renal Transplantation? A Google TrendsTM Analysis.

Authors:  Andreas Kronbichler; Maria Effenberger; Jae Il Shin; Christian Koppelstätter; Sara Denicolò; Michael Rudnicki; Hannes Neuwirt; Maria José Soler; Kate Stevens; Annette Bruchfeld; Herbert Tilg; Gert Mayer; Paul Perco
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2020-04-07       Impact factor: 4.241

3.  Insights From Transplant Professionals on the Use of Social Media: Implications and Responsibilities.

Authors:  Shaifali Sandal; Arvinder Soin; Frank J M F Dor; Elmi Muller; Ala Ali; Allison Tong; Albert Chan; Dorry L Segev; Macey Levan
Journal:  Transpl Int       Date:  2022-02-03       Impact factor: 3.782

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.