A recent search for doctors on Facebook reveals more than 1,000 pages including a mixed bag of public figures like Mehmet Oz, authors (Ben Carson), and inevitably, fictitious characters like Dr. House. Scroll down a bit and you will start to see pages for physicians with everyday types of practices.
As an ob-gyn and active user of social media, I enjoy being able to connect online with friends, family, and colleagues. Turns out, I’m in good company: Nearly all physicians in the US are now on social media, and more and more of us are using social for professional purposes.
One of the fastest-growing areas for new tech products: digital health and fitness devices, is geared toward helping people tackle their New Year's resolutions head-on. A slew of new products debut at CES.
Les tendances vont et viennent, j'imagine qu'il ne faut pas trop y accorder d'importance, et dans tous les cas mieux vaut chercher sa propre voie plutôt que suivre la mode comme un mouton.
Concernant mon domaine de prédilection, en tout cas celui qui m'anime ici, j'observe comment ces dernières années ont fait basculer le fan de web et de technologie du statut de vilain asocial boutonneux à celui de la personne à avoir dans son entourage. Ou mieux, à être soi-même.
The influence of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other social media giants has spread across modern society faster than the Black Death swept across 14thcentury Europe. Speaking of pandemics, how does healthcare fit into the world of social media? Welcome to social health.
Social health is the mash-up of social media and healthcare, and it’s starting to gain traction. In fact, a third of all consumers use social media for matters regarding their health. Thanks to social networking sites and the increased availability of broadband and mobile technology, people are forming online patient support groups, becoming better educated on medical topics and diagnoses, and sharing doctor and product reviews – wherever and whenever they want.
However, people still tend to trust their doctors over peers and family when it comes to getting accurate medical advice, giving providers a great opportunity to jump into the social-health fray. And many have. In a 2012 study by the, 24 percent of doctors said they used social media at least once a day to look for medical information while almost two-thirds think social media enhances their ability to care for their patients.
There are many benefits for providers who take part in social health as well, such as giving doctors a way to connect with consumers in between visits and allowing healthcare organizations to receive immediate feedback on products and services.
Concerns about privacy and security have surfaced alongside the rising popularity of social health. Consumers are worried that their medical records will go public whilehealth information technologyspecialists must try to protect patient privacy and act within the bounds of HIPAA and the FDA as they participate in the online social sphere.
This is just a peek into the vast realm of social health. Check out the infographic below for even more valuable insights about this incredible new online movement.
AuthorsHamm MP, et al. Show all Journal Acad Med. 2013 Sep;88(9):1376-83. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31829eb91c. Affiliation Abstract PURPOSE: To conduct a scoping review of the literature on social media use by health care professionals and trainees. METHOD: The authors searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, ERIC, PubMed, CINAHL Plus Full Text, Academic Search Complete, Alt Health Watch, Health Source, Communication and Mass Media Complete, Web of Knowledge, and ProQuest for studies published between 2000 and 2012. They included those reporting primary research on social media use by health care professionals or trainees. Two reviewers screened studies for eligibility; one reviewer extracted data and a second verified a 10% sample. They analyzed data descriptively to determine which social media tools were used, by whom, for what purposes, and how they were evaluated. RESULTS: The authors included 96 studies in their review. Discussion forums were the most commonly studied tools (43/96; 44.8%). Researchers more often studied social media in educational than practice settings. Of common specialties, administration, critical appraisal, and research appeared most often (11/96; 11.5%), followed by public health (9/96; 9.4%). The objective of most tools was to facilitate communication (59/96; 61.5%) or improve knowledge (41/96; 42.7%). Thirteen studies evaluated effectiveness (13.5%), and 41 (42.7%) used a cross-sectional design. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide a map of the current literature on social media use in health care, identify gaps in that literature, and provide direction for future research. Social media use is widespread, particularly in education settings. The versatility of these tools suggests their suitability for use in a wide range of professional activities. Studies of their effectiveness could inform future practice.
Our national survey finds that seven-in-ten (72%) adult internet users say they have searched online for information about a range of health issues, the most popular being specific diseases and treatments.
Social media has become an essential part of our daily lives, but, with so many networks out there fighting for our attention which networks are we really using? Overall, 72% of adults over the age of 18 used a social network in 2012. Currently Facebookis still the most popular site with 62% of adult global Internet users actively logging in, with nearly half of these users active on Twitter too...
Definition of Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0: A Systematic Review
Background: During the last decade, the Internet has become increasingly popular and is now an important part of our daily life. When new “Web 2.0” technologies are used in health care, the terms “Health 2.0" or "Medicine 2.0” may be used. Objective: The objective was to identify unique definitions of Health 2.0/Medicine 2.0 and recurrent topics within the definitions. Methods: A systematic literature review of electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL) and gray literature on the Internet using the search engines Google, Bing, and Yahoo was performed to find unique definitions of Health 2.0/Medicine 2.0. We assessed all literature, extracted unique definitions, and selected recurrent topics by using the constant comparison method. Results: We found a total of 1937 articles, 533 in scientific databases and 1404 in the gray literature. We selected 46 unique definitions for further analysis and identified 7 main topics. Conclusions: Health 2.0/Medicine 2.0 are still developing areas. Many articles concerning this subject were found, primarily on the Internet. However, there is still no general consensus regarding the definition of Health 2.0/Medicine 2.0. We hope that this study will contribute to building the concept of Health 2.0/Medicine 2.0 and facilitate discussion and further research.
(J Med Internet Res 2010;12(2):e18)
During the last decade, the Internet has become increasingly popular and now forms an important part of our daily life . In the Netherlands, the Internet is even more popular than traditional media like television, radio, and newspapers . Furthermore, the impact of the Internet and other technological developments on health care is expected to increase [3,4]. Patients are using search engines like Google and Bing to find health related information. In Google, five percent of all searches are health related . Patients can express their feelings on weblogs and online forums , and patients and professionals can use the Internet to improve communication and the sharing of information on websites such as Curetogether  and the Dutch website, Artsennet  for medical professionals. The use of Internet or Web technology in health care is called eHealth [1,8].
In 2004 the term “Web 2.0” was introduced. O’Reilly defined Web 2.0 as “a set of economic, social, and technology trends that collectively form the basis for the next generation of the Internet, a more mature, distinctive medium characterized by user participation, openness, and network effects” . Although there are different definitions, most have several aspects in common. Hansen defined Web 2.0 as “a term which refers to improved communication and collaboration between people via social networking” . According to both definitions, the main difference between Web 1.0 (the first generation of the Internet) and Web 2.0 is interaction . Web 1.0 was mostly unidirectional, whereas Web 2.0 allows the user to add information or content to the Web, thus creating interaction. This is why the amount of “user-generated content” has increased enormously . Practical examples of user-generated content are online communities where users can participate and share content. Examples are YouTube, Flickr, Facebook, and microblogging such as Twitter. Twitter, for example, improves communication and the sharing of information among health care professionals ....
According to a recent report from the NPD Group, San Francisco-based Fitbit shipped 67 percent of all activity tracking devices in 2013. The company’s devices also accounted for 77 percent of the “full body activity trackers” shipped during the five weeks leading up to Christmas. That’s up from about 60 percent for 2012′s holiday season, according to Fitbit. NPD also estimated that the digital fitness category is now a $330 million market.
Imagine a global, real-time, unprompted focus group discussing your brand. That is what social media listening tools now enable – do not wait until a crisis to take advantage (You want real-time insights about your brand.