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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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