| Literature DB >> 32484441 |
Windy Sy Chan1,2, Angela Ym Leung3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Social network sites (SNSs) are widely exploited in health education and communication by the general public, including patients with various conditions. Nevertheless, there is an absence of evidence evaluating SNSs in connecting health professionals for professional purposes.Entities:
Keywords: Facebook; continuous professional education; dementia; social network sites
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32484441 PMCID: PMC7298630 DOI: 10.2196/16772
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Internet Res ISSN: 1438-8871 Impact factor: 5.428
Figure 1Representative screenshots of six types of Facebook posts.
Participant engagement actions on Facebook.
| Engagement Action | Definition |
| Comment | A participant commented on a post or a comment made by another member in the group |
| React | A participant clicked the reaction button on a post to share different reactions: Like, Love, Haha, Wow, Sad, or Angry |
| Done | A participant clicked the “Done” button of a post. |
Figure 2Study CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) flowchart.
Baseline characteristics of the study participants.
| Characteristic | All participants (N=80) | Intervention group (n=40) | Control group (n=40) | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
| 20-29 | 28 (35) | 14 (35) | 14 (35) |
| ||||
|
| 30-39 | 23 (29) | 13 (33) | 10 (25) |
| ||||
|
| 40-49 | 15 (19) | 6 (15) | 9 (23) |
| ||||
|
| 50-59 | 11 (14) | 5 (13) | 6 (15) |
| ||||
|
| 60-69 | 3 (4) | 2 (5) | 1 (3) |
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
| Male | 19 (24) | 8 (20) | 11 (28) |
| ||||
|
| Female | 61 (76) | 32 (80) | 29 (73) |
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
| Pharmacist | 33 (41) | 17 (43) | 16 (40) |
| ||||
|
| Nurse | 30 (38) | 16 (40) | 14 (35) |
| ||||
|
| Others | 17 (21) | 7 (18) | 10 (25) |
| ||||
|
| Optometrist | 10 (13) | 6 (15) | 4 (10) |
| ||||
|
| Physiotherapist | 3 (4) | 1 (3) | 2 (5) |
| ||||
|
| Houseman | 1 (1) | 0 (0) | 1 (3) |
| ||||
|
| Occupational therapist | 1 (1) | 0 (0) | 1 (3) |
| ||||
|
| Overseas pharmacist and nurse | 1 (1) | 0 (0) | 1 (3) |
| ||||
|
| Physician | 1 (1) | 0 (0) | 1 (3) |
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
| <1 year | 3 (4) | 0 (0) | 3 (8) |
| ||||
|
| 1-2 years | 9 (11) | 6 (15) | 3 (8) |
| ||||
|
| 2-3 years | 3 (4) | 3 (8) | 0 (0) |
| ||||
|
| 3-5 years | 10 (13) | 4 (10) | 6 (15) |
| ||||
|
| 5-10 years | 12 (15) | 7 (18) | 5 (13) |
| ||||
|
| >10 years | 43 (54) | 20 (50) | 23 (58) |
| ||||
aChi square test.
bFisher exact test.
Scores and the comparison of changes in scores at postintervention knowledge assessment.
| Assessment | Intervention group (n=40) | Control group (n=40) | 95% CI | Effect size | |||||
|
| Postintervention score, mean (SD) | Change in score, mean (SD) | Postintervention score, mean (SD) | Change in score, mean (SD) |
|
|
| ||
| Total DKASa score (maximum score 50) | 36.9 (8.0) | 8.3 (8.6) | <.001 | 35.1 (8.0) | 4.9 (8.4) | .007 | –1.1-7.8 | .13 | 0.44 (small) |
| DKAS subscale Causes and Characteristics (maximum score 14) | 11.3 (3.0) | 2.5 (3.4) | <.001 | 10.8 (2.5) | 1.8 (3.4) | .01 | –1.1-2.5 | .44 | 0.20 (small) |
| DKAS subscale Communication and Behavior (maximum score 12) | 7.5 (3.1) | 2.1 (3.6) | .001 | 6.2 (2.6) | 0.3 (2.1) | .51 | 0.4-3.3 | .02 | 0.77 (medium) |
| DKAS subscale Care Considerations (maximum score 12) | 9.5 (2.6) | 1.4 (2.8) | .007 | 9.9 (2.6) | 1.1 (2.9) | .07 | –1.2-1.8 | .70 | 0.23 (small) |
| DKAS subscale Risks and Health Promotion (maximum score 12) | 8.6 (2.3) | 2.3 (3.0) | <.001 | 8.2 (2.7) | 1.7 (3.0) | .009 | –1.0-2.2 | .48 | 0.21 (small) |
| Multiple choice question (maximum score 20) | 13.2 (3.9) | 4.9 (3.7) | <.001 | 12.8 (5.0) | 3.6 (4.5) | .001 | –0.9-3.5 | .25 | 0.26 (small) |
aDKAS: Dementia Knowledge Assessment Scale.
Participant compliance.
| Total number of weeks accessed | Intervention group (N=40), n (%) | Control group (N=40), n (%) |
| 0 | 1 (3) | 9 (23) |
| 1 | 2 (5) | 9 (23) |
| 2 | 1 (3) | 1 (3) |
| 3 | 2 (5) | 4 (10) |
| 4 | 1 (3) | 2 (5) |
| 5 | 3 (8) | 1 (3) |
| 6 | 5 (13) | 1 (3) |
| 7 | 7 (18) | 5 (13) |
| 8 | 18 (45) | 8 (20) |
Participant satisfaction with the educational intervention.
| Item | All (N=60) | Intervention group (n=35) | Control group (n=25) | ||
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 1. Describe the prevalence, pathophysiology and recognition of dementia | 3.9 (0.6) | 3.8 (0.6) | 4.0 (0.6) | .28a |
|
| 2. Apply the key screening and assessment tools for diagnosing dementia | 3.8 (0.7) | 3.7 (0.7) | 3.9 (0.8) | .30a |
|
| 3. Explain the management and support to both elderly people with dementia and their caregivers | 3.9 (0.6) | 3.9 (0.6) | 4.0 (0.6) | .26a |
|
| 4. Appraise your role in the delivery of dementia care | 3.8 (0.7) | 3.7 (0.7) | 3.9 (0.7) | .22a |
|
| Overall (sum of items 1 to 4)/20 | 15.4 (2.3) | 15.1 (2.3) | 15.8 (2.2) | .19a |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 5. The training enhanced my knowledge of dementia care | 4.2 (0.6) | 4.2 (0.6) | 4.1 (0.6) | .75a |
|
| 6. The learning material was well organized | 4.1 (0.7) | 3.9 (0.8) | 4.2 (0.6) | .18a |
|
| 7. The learning material was easy to use | 3.9 (0.9) | 3.8 (1.0) | 4.1 (0.8) | .21a |
|
| 8. I will be able to apply the training information to my professional practice | 3.8 (0.8) | 3.8 (0.8) | 3.8 (0.7) | .89a |
|
| 9. I would recommend this training to others | 4.0 (0.7) | 3.9 (0.7) | 4.0 (0.7) | .49a |
|
| 10. Overall, I am satisfied with this training | 4.0 (0.6) | 4.0 (0.6) | 4.0 (0.6) | .81a |
|
| Overall (sum of items 1 to 6)/30 | 23.9 (3.8) | 23.6 (4.0) | 24.3 (3.5) | .49a |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| About right | 49 (82) | 27 (77) | 22 (88) |
|
|
| Too long | 10 (17) | 7 (20) | 3 (12) |
|
|
| Too short | 1 (2) | 1 (3) | 0 (0) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| About right | 51 (85) | 30 (86) | 21 (84) |
|
|
| Not enough | 4 (7) | 1 (3) | 3 (12) |
|
|
| Too much | 5 (8) | 4 (11) | 1 (4) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| About right | 52 (87) | 29 (83) | 23 (92) |
|
|
| Too difficult | 8 (13) | 6 (17) | 2 (8) |
|
|
| Too easy | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
|
aIndependent sample t test.
bChi square test.
Attitudes toward the use of Facebook for continuous professional education programs.
| Item | All (N=60), mean (SD) | Intervention group (n=35), | Control group (n=25), | |
| 1. Using Facebook improved my learning experience | 3.6 (0.8) | 3.7 (0.9) | 3.3 (0.7) | .02 |
| 2. Using Facebook helped me stay more engaged | 3.5 (0.9) | 3.6 (0.9) | 3.2 (0.7) | .09 |
| 3. Using Facebook enabled me to gain more knowledge | 3.4 (0.8) | 3.5 (0.9) | 3.3 (0.7) | .26 |
| 4. Using Facebook will help me apply what I have learned to clinical practice | 3.2 (0.9) | 3.4 (1.0) | 3.0 (0.8) | .09 |
| 5. Using Facebook enhanced my education | 3.4 (0.9) | 3.5 (0.9) | 3.2 (0.8) | .28 |
| 6. I would be more likely to attend a CPEb/CNEc course if it uses Facebook | 3.4 (0.9) | 3.6 (0.8) | 3.1 (0.9) | .02 |
| 7. I am likely to use Facebook after the course is over | 3.4 (0.9) | 3.6 (0.9) | 3.1 (1.0) | .05 |
| 8. Facebook is easy to use | 3.6 (0.8) | 3.8 (0.7) | 3.4 (0.8) | .05 |
| 9. Facebook is intuitive to use | 3.5 (0.8) | 3.6 (0.8) | 3.2 (0.8) | .05 |
| 10. I would recommend Facebook for other CPE courses | 3.4 (1.0) | 3.7 (0.9) | 3.0 (0.9) | .01 |
| Overall (sum of items 1 to 10)/50 | 34.3 (7.5) | 36.0 (7.4) | 31.8 (6.9) | .03 |
aIndependent sample t test.
bCPE: continuing professional education.
cCNE: continuing nursing education.