Download PDF
Yearb Med Inform 2011; 20(01): 21-29
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1638732
Working Group Contributions
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart

Experience in the Use of Social Media in Medical and Health Education

Contribution of the IMIA Social Media Working Group
C. Paton
1   IMIA Social Media Working Group Chair, University of Auckland, New Zealand
,
P. D. Bamidis
2   Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
,
G. Eysenbach
3   University of Toronto, Canada
,
M. Hansen
4   University of San Francisco, USA
,
M. Cabrer
5   Medting.com, Spain
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
06 March 2018 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Objectives

Social media are online tools that allow collaboration and community building. Succinctly, they can be described as applications where “users add value”. This paper aims to show how five educators have used social media tools in medical and health education to attempt to add value to the education they provide.

Methods

We conducted a review of the literature about the use of social media tools in medical and health education. Each of the authors reported on their use of social media in their educational projects and collaborated on a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of this approach to delivering educational projects.

Results

We found little empirical evidence to support the use of social media tools in medical and health education. Social media are, however, a rapidly evolving range of tools, websites and online experiences and it is likely that the topic is too broad to draw definitive conclusions from any particular study. As practitioners in the use of social media, we have recognised how difficult it is to create evidence of effectiveness and have therefore presented only our anecdotal opinions based on our personal experiences of using social media in our educational projects.

Conclusion

The authors feel confident in recommending that other educators use social media in their educational projects. Social media appear to have unique advantages over non-social educational tools. The learning experience appears to be enhanced by the ability of students to virtually build connections, make friends and find mentors. Creating a scientific analysis of why these connections enhance learning is difficult, but anecdotal and preliminary survey evidence appears to be positive and our experience reflects the hypothesis that learning is, at heart, a social activity.

Keywords

Social media - web 2.0 - medical education - conferences 2.0 - mhealth
 

  • References

  • 1 Andersen P. What is Web 2.0?: ideas, technologies and implications for education. Citeseer; 2007
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Berliner DC, Calfee RC. American Psychological Association. Division of Educational P. Handbook of educational psychology. Macmillan; 1996
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Donovan MS, Bransford JD, Pellegrino JW. How People Learn: Bridging Research and Practice. National Academy Press; 1999
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Kaldoudi E, Konstantinidis S, Bamidis P. Web Advances in Education: Interactive, Collaborative Learning via Web 2.0. Chapter in: Tzanavari A, Tsapatsoulis N. editors. Affective, Interactive and Cognitive Methods for E-Learning Design: Creating an Optimal Education Experience. Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global; 2004
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Ebner M, Holzinger A, Maurer H. Web 2.0 technology: future interfaces for technology enhanced learning? Universal Access in Human- Computer Interaction Applications and Services. Lecture Notes in Computer Science Volume 4556; 2007; 559-68.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Rhea S. Going mobile. Wireless devices and technology bring surge in advanced applications for health monitoring and treatment, but legal and privacy issues remain. Mod Healthc 2010; 40 (18) 28.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Thornburg DD. The new basics: Education and the future of work in the telematic age. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development; 2002
    Google Scholar
  • 8 The Future of Nursing: Leading Change, Advancing Health. Institute of Medicine; 2010
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Response to the Institute of Medicine’s Report To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System AACN White Paper: Distance Technology in Nursing Education. Tri-Council for Nursing; 1999. [cited 2011 14 February 2011]; Available from: http://www.aacn.nche.edu/publications/positions/whitepaper.htm
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Alexander B. Going Nomadic: Moblile Learning in Higher Education. Educause Review 2004; 6.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Guernsey L. In the Lecture Hall, A Geek Chorus [CORRECTED]. The New York Times; 2003
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Hu W. Math That Moves: Schools Embrace the iPad. New York Times; 2011. [cited 2011 14 February 2011]; Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/education/05tablets.html
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Billings DM. From teaching to learning in a mobile, wireless world. The Journal of nursing education 2005; 44 (08) 343.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Maag M. Podcasting and MP3 players: Emerging education technologies. Computers Informatics Nursing 2006; 24 (01) 9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Shneiderman B. Computer Science: Science 2.0. Science 2008; 319 (5868): 1349.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Hughes B, Joshi I, Wareham J. Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0: tensions and controversies in the field. J Med Internet Res. 2008. 10. (3)
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Eysenbach G. Medicine 2.0: social networking, collaboration, participation, apomediation, and openness. J Med Internet Res. 2008 10. (3):
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Giustini D. How Web 2.0 is changing medicine. BMJ 2006; 333 (7582): 1283.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Top 10 Innovations of 2010. CNN; 2010. [cited 2010 14 February 2010]; Available from: http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/tech/2010/12/24/2010.top.ten.innovations.cnn.html
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Top Twitter Trends in 2010. Twitter; 2010. [cited 2010 14 February 2010]; Available from: http://yearinreview.twitter.com/trends/
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Paton HIVEC. National Institute for Health Innovation; 2011. [cited 2011 2/6/2011]; Available from: http://www.hive.org.nz
  • 22 Bamidis P, Kaldoudi E, Pattichis C. mEducator: A Best Practice Network for Repurposing and Sharing Medical Educational Multi-type Content. In: Leveraging Knowledge for Innovation in Collaborative Networks, IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology. Springer Verlag; 2009: 769-76.
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Bamidis P, Constantinidis S, Kaldoudi E, Maglaveras N, Pappas C. The use of Web 2.0 in teaching Medical Informatics to postgraduate medical students: first experiences. Published as Multimedia Appendix in: Eysenbach G. Medicine 2008; 02: 1022-23.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Santana EFZ, Prado AF, Souza WL, Santana LHZ. editors. A Web 2.0 Based Environment for Simulation Activities in Constructivist Medical Education. 2009
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Santoro E. Podcasts, wikis and blogs: The web 2.0 tools for medical and health education. Recenti progressi in medicina 2007; 98 (10) 484.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 McGee JB, Begg M. What medical educators need to know about “Web 2.0”. 2009
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Kamel MNBoulos, Wheeler S. The emerging Web 2.0 social software: an enabling suite of sociable technologies in health and health care education1. Health Info Libr J 2007; 24 (01) 2-23.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Cain J, Fox BI. Web 2.0 and pharmacy education. Am J Pharm Educ. 2009 73. (7)
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Sandars J, Homer M, Pell G, Crocker T. Web 2.0 and social software: the medical student way of elearning. Med Teach 2010; (0): 1-5.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Conklin EJ. Dialogue mapping: building shared understanding of wicked problems. Wiley; 2006
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Sandars J, Schroter S. Web 2.0 technologies for undergraduate and postgraduate medical education: an online survey. BMJ 2007; 83 (986) 759.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar