Stellenwert der Digitalisierung im urologischen Alltag

Zusammenfassung

Kaum eine andere digitale Technologie hat die Gesellschaft so geprägt und verändert wie das Internet. Kulturell wird die Bedeutung mit der Einführung des Buchdruckes verglichen. Im Jahr 2018 hatten über 4 Milliarden Menschen Zugang zum Internet. Etwa 80 % der Internetnutzer suchen nach Gesundheitsinformationen, am häufigsten über Krebserkrankungen. Patienten schätzen das Internet als hilfreiche Informationsmöglichkeit ein. Es existieren über 2,6 Milliarden aktive Nutzer von Sozialen Medien. Unter deutschen urologischen Weiterbildungsassistenten nutzen 97 % Soziale Medien privat oder beruflich. Insbesondere für uroonkologische Themen besteht ein großes Potential, mittels Digitalisierung die Gesundheitskompetenz der Patienten zu fördern und zur Optimierung der Patientenversorgung beizutragen. Zusammenfassend birgt die Digitalisierung ein immenses Potential für die Urologie.

Abstract

The Internet has shaped and changed society like no other technology. Culturally, the emergence of the Internet is being described as having the same impact on society as the invention of printing. In 2018, more than 4 billion people had access to the Internet. Among all Internet users, approximately 80 % search the Internet for health-related information, with cancer being the most frequently searched condition. Patients rate the Internet as the second most helpful source of information, outranked only by consultation with a medical doctor. There are more than 2.6 billion active social media users. Among urological residents, 97 % use social media on a regular basis. Digitalisation has the potential to strengthen patients’ health literacy and optimise patient care, especially in the oncologic field. In summary, digitalisation bears an enormous potential for the field of urology.

Schlüsselwörter

Digitalisierung - Neue Medien - Soziale Medien - Apps - Internet

Keywords

Social Media - New Media - Apps - Internet - digitalisation

• Literatur

• 1 Association. The ALS. 2018. ALS Ice Bucket Challenge.
• 2 Attai DJ, Cowher MS, Al-Hamadani M. et al. Twitter Social Media is an Effective Tool for Breast Cancer Patient Education and Support: Patient-Reported Outcomes by Survey. J Med Internet Res 2015; 17: e188
• 3 Autorino R, Quarto G, Di Lorenzo G. et al. Are abstracts presented at the EAU meeting followed by publication in peer-reviewed journals? A critical analysis. Eur Urol 2007; 51: 833-840 ; discussion 840
• 4 Avci K, Celikden SG, Eren S. et al. Assessment of medical studentsʼ attitudes on social media use in medicine: a cross-sectional study. BMC Med Educ 2015; 15: 18
• 5 Baker DW, Wolf MS, Feinglass J. et al. Health literacy, cognitive abilities, and mortality among elderly persons. J Gen Intern Med 2008; 23: 723-726
• 6 Baker DW, Wolf MS, Feinglass J. et al. Health literacy and mortality among elderly persons. Arch Intern Med 2007; 167: 1503-1509
• 7 Baunacke M, Groeben C, Borgmann H. et al. Andrology on the Internet: Most wanted, controversial and often primary source of information for patients. Andrologia 2018;
• 8 BBC. How much has the ice bucket challenge achieved?. 2015
• 9 Black PC, Penson DF. Prostate cancer on the Internet--information or misinformation?. J Urol 2006; 175: 1836-1842 ; discussion 1842
• 10 Borgmann H, Mager R, Salem J. et al. Robotic Prostatectomy on the Web: A Cross-Sectional Qualitative Assessment. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2016; 14: e355-362
• 11 Borgmann H, Salem J, Baunacke M. et al. Mapping the landscape of urology: A new media-based cross-sectional analysis of public versus academic interest. Int J Urol 2018;
• 12 Borgmann H, Woelm JH, Merseburger A. et al. Qualitative Twitter analysis of participants, tweet strategies, and tweet content at a major urologic conference. Can Urol Assoc J 2016; 10: 39-44
• 13 Borgmann H, Wolm JH, Vallo S. et al. Prostate Cancer on the Web-Expedient Tool for Patients' Decision-Making?. J Cancer Educ 2017; 32: 135-140
• 14 Chumley-Jones HS, Dobbie A, Alford CL. Web-based learning: sound educational method or hype? A review of the evaluation literature. Acad Med 2002; 77 (Suppl. 10) S86-93
• 15 Curran VR, Fleet L. A review of evaluation outcomes of web-based continuing medical education. Med Educ 2005; 39: 561-567
• 16 Dalziel K, Leveridge MJ, Steele SS. et al. An analysis of the readability of patient information materials for common urological conditions. Can Urol Assoc J 2016; 10: 167-170
• 17 Davies N, Murphy DG, van Rij S. et al. Online and social media presence of Australian and New Zealand urologists. BJU Int 2015; 116: 984-989
• 18 De Sio M, Yakoubi R, De Nunzio C. et al. Reporting quality of abstracts presented at the European Association of Urology meeting: a critical assessment. J Urol 2012; 188: 1883-1886
• 19 Dong C, Cheema M, Samarasekera D. et al. Using LinkedIn for Continuing Community of Practice Among Hand Surgeons Worldwide. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2015; 35: 185-191
• 20 Eysenbach G, Kohler C. Health-related searches on the Internet. JAMA 2004; 291: 2946
• 21 Fox S, Duggan M. Health online. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project; 2013 http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/01/15/health-online-2013/ Accessed 06 März 2018
• 22 Fuoco M, Leveridge MJ. Early adopters or laggards? Attitudes toward and use of social media among urologists. BJU Int 2015; 115: 491-497
• 23 Galiatsatos P, Porto-Carreiro F, Hayashi J. et al. The use of social media to supplement resident medical education - the SMART-ME initiative. Med Educ Online 2016; 21: 29332
• 24 Gilbert SM, Sanda MG, Dunn RL. et al. Satisfaction with information used to choose prostate cancer treatment. J Urol 2014; 191: 1265-1271
• 25 Hale TM, Pathipati AS, Zan S. et al. Representation of health conditions on Facebook: content analysis and evaluation of user engagement. J Med Internet Res 2014; 16: e182
• 26 Hoag CC, Elterman DS, Macneily AE. Abstracts presented at the American Urological Association Annual Meeting: determinants of subsequent peer reviewed publication. J Urol 2006; 176: 2624-2629 ; discussion 2629
• 27 Lee CT, Smith CA, Hall JM. et al. Bladder cancer facts: accuracy of information on the Internet. J Urol 2003; 170: 1756-1760
• 28 Loeb S, Bayne CE, Frey C. et al., and Group American Urological Association Social Media Work Use of social media in urology: data from the American Urological Association (AUA). BJU Int 2014; 113: 993-998
• 29 Matta R, Doiron C, Leveridge MJ. The dramatic increase in social media in urology. J Urol 2014; 192: 494-498
• 30 McGowan BS, Wasko M, Vartabedian BS. et al. Understanding the factors that influence the adoption and meaningful use of social media by physicians to share medical information. J Med Internet Res 2012; 14: e117
• 31 Nason GJ, Burke MJ, Aslam A. et al. The use of smartphone applications by urology trainees. Surgeon 2015; 13: 263-266
• 32 Nason GJ, O’Kelly F, Bouchier-Hayes D. et al. Twitter expands the reach and engagement of a national scientific meeting: the Irish Society of Urology. Ir J Med Sci 2015; 184: 685-689
• 33 Nason GJ, O’Kelly F, Kelly ME. et al. The emerging use of Twitter by urological journals. BJU Int 2015; 115: 486-490
• 34 Nestler T, Salem J, Borgmann H. [GeSRU-StepS! - Urologic surgery teaching videos step by step]. Urologe A 2015; 54: 1291-1293
• 35 Paffenholz P, Salem J, Borgmann H. et al. Testicular Cancer on the Web-an Appropriate Source of Patient Information in Concordance with the European Association of Urology Guidelines?. J Cancer Educ 2017;
• 36 Paffenholz P, Salem J, Syring I. et al. [GeSRU testicular cancer app : Staging from the pocket]. Urologe A 2017; 56: 1044-1046
• 37 Payne KB, Wharrad H, Watts K. Smartphone and medical related App use among medical students and junior doctors in the United Kingdom (UK): a regional survey. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2012; 12: 121
• 38 Pereira-Azevedo N, Carrasquinho E, Cardoso de Oliveira E. et al. mHealth in Urology: A Review of Experts’ Involvement in App Development. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0125547
• 39 Salem J, Borgmann H, Baunacke M. et al. Widespread use of internet, applications, and social media in the professional life of urology residents. Can Urol Assoc J 2017; 11: E355-E366
• 40 Salem J, Borgmann H, Bultitude M. et al. Online Discussion on #KidneyStones: A Longitudinal Assessment of Activity, Users and Content. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0160863
• 41 Salem J, Borgmann H, MacNeily A. et al. New Media for Educating Urology Residents: An Interview Study in Canada and Germany. J Surg Educ 2017; 74: 495-502
• 42 Salem J, Borgmann H, Murphy DG. Integrating Social Media into Urologic Health care: What Can We Learn from Other Disciplines?. Curr Urol Rep 2016; 17 : 13
• 43 Salem J, Paffenholz P, Bolenz C. et al. Websites on Bladder Cancer: an Appropriate Source of Patient Information?. J Cancer Educ 2018;
• 44 Scales Jr CD, Smith AC, Hanley JM. et al. and Project Urologic Diseases in America Prevalence of kidney stones in the United States. Eur Urol 62: 160-165
• 45 Statista. Number of social media users worldwide from 2010 to 2021. 2018 https://www.statista.com/statistics/278414/number-of-worldwide-social-network-users/ Accessed 05 März 2018
• 46 Struck JP, Siegel F, Kramer MW. et al. Substantial utilization of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram in the prostate cancer community. World J Urol 2018; 36: 1241-1246
• 47 Sudore RL, Yaffe K, Satterfield S. et al. Limited literacy and mortality in the elderly: the health, aging, and body composition study. J Gen Intern Med 2006; 21: 806-812
• 48 Symplur. Healthcare Hashtag Project. 2018 https://www.symplur.com/healthcare-hashtags/
• 49 Vaidya M. Ice bucket challenge cash may help derisk ALS drug research. Nat Med 2014; 20: 1080
• 50 Villanti AC, Jacobs MA, Zawistowski G. et al. Impact of Baseline Assessment Modality on Enrollment and Retention in a Facebook Smoking Cessation Study. J Med Internet Res 2015; 17: e179