Kevin Moore1, Elizabeth Cottrell2,3, Ruth Chambers4. 1. Medical Student, Keele University School of Medicine, David Weatherall Building, Keele University, Keele, UK. 2. Academic GP, Wolstanton Medical Centre, Keele, UK. 3. NIHR Clinical Lecturer in General Practice, Research Institute for Primary Care & Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK. 4. Clinical Lead, Long Term Conditions Network, West Midlands Academic Health Science Network, Birmingham, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Social media has been utilised in a variety of healthcare settings. While its potential for extending healthcare services is recognised by the NHS, potential pitfalls exist. The place, benefits and practical problems of using Facebook in general practice are unclear. AIM: To understand the utilisation of Facebook by general practices, whether Facebook provides novel insights when compared to other centrally-hosted feedback platforms, and the prevalence of unofficial Facebook pages. DESIGN & SETTING: Eighty-three general practices in North Staffordshire. METHOD: Publicly available information and feedback relating to general practices on official and unofficial Facebook sites was examined and compared to other, centrally-hosted feedback platforms (NHS Choices and Patient Satisfaction ratings). Thematic and descriptive analyses were undertaken to understand the nature of the content. RESULTS: Thirty-one practices had publicly-accessible, practice-owned, official Facebook sites which, overall, had received over 7000 likes. Two had integrated booking systems, 14 allowed reviews and all had accurate practice information. Most remaining practices (41/52) were found to have an unofficial Facebook page. CONCLUSION: General practice use of open Facebook pages is variable, but most commonly used to provide generic practice information and for gaining patient feedback. Patient engagement with pages suggests demand for this technology. Risks associated with unmoderated unofficial pages can be mitigated by practices having official pages hosted by the practice with appropriate protocols in place for managing them. Practices need to be supported to better understand meaningful uses of this technology and the potential risks of unofficial practice Facebook pages.
BACKGROUND: Social media has been utilised in a variety of healthcare settings. While its potential for extending healthcare services is recognised by the NHS, potential pitfalls exist. The place, benefits and practical problems of using Facebook in general practice are unclear. AIM: To understand the utilisation of Facebook by general practices, whether Facebook provides novel insights when compared to other centrally-hosted feedback platforms, and the prevalence of unofficial Facebook pages. DESIGN & SETTING: Eighty-three general practices in North Staffordshire. METHOD: Publicly available information and feedback relating to general practices on official and unofficial Facebook sites was examined and compared to other, centrally-hosted feedback platforms (NHS Choices and Patient Satisfaction ratings). Thematic and descriptive analyses were undertaken to understand the nature of the content. RESULTS: Thirty-one practices had publicly-accessible, practice-owned, official Facebook sites which, overall, had received over 7000 likes. Two had integrated booking systems, 14 allowed reviews and all had accurate practice information. Most remaining practices (41/52) were found to have an unofficial Facebook page. CONCLUSION: General practice use of open Facebook pages is variable, but most commonly used to provide generic practice information and for gaining patient feedback. Patient engagement with pages suggests demand for this technology. Risks associated with unmoderated unofficial pages can be mitigated by practices having official pages hosted by the practice with appropriate protocols in place for managing them. Practices need to be supported to better understand meaningful uses of this technology and the potential risks of unofficial practice Facebook pages.
Entities:
Keywords:
evaluation; general practice; social media
Authors: Carl L Hanson; Josh West; Rosemary Thackeray; Michael D Barnes; Jordan Downey Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2014-11-26 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Wen-ying Sylvia Chou; Yvonne M Hunt; Ellen Burke Beckjord; Richard P Moser; Bradford W Hesse Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2009-11-27 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: S Anne Moorhead; Diane E Hazlett; Laura Harrison; Jennifer K Carroll; Anthea Irwin; Ciska Hoving Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2013-04-23 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Ivan Cherrez-Ojeda; Valeria L Mata; Emanuel Vanegas; Miguel Felix; Jonathan A Bernstein; Fanny M Jiménez; Juan Carlos Calderon; Peter Chedraui; Antonio Wd Gavilanes Journal: Int J Telemed Appl Date: 2020-01-23