Advertisement

Rheumatology International

, Volume 40, Issue 2, pp 183–190 | Cite as

Social media for research, education and practice in rheumatology

  • Olena ZimbaEmail author
  • Olena Radchenko
  • Larysa Strilchuk
Review

Abstract

Online social networking offers numerous opportunities for continuing medical education, professional development, and scholarly collaboration. Available social media channels proved useful for expanding education and research perspectives, particularly in rapidly developing academic disciplines such as rheumatology. Although there are numerous advantages of social media, busy clinicians should be aware of some drawbacks related to misinformation, unethical promotion, and unprofessional behavior in globally expanding platforms. Filtering credible and expert-proven information by skilled users is, therefore, increasingly important. Enforcing ethical norms and advancing professional etiquette in the field is strongly advisable. This article overviews the advantages and shortcomings of social media and reflects on available platforms for education and research in rheumatology.

Keywords

Social media Twitter Scholarly communication Research Education Rheumatology 

Notes

Author contributions

In accordance with the ICMJE criteria, all authors contributed to the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Qualman E (2010) Socialnomics: how social media transforms the way we live and do business (paperback edition). Wiley, ISBN-13:9780470638842Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mašić I, Begić E, Donev DM, Gajović S, Gasparyan AY, Jakovljević M et al (2016) Sarajevo declaration on integrity and visibility of scholarly publications. Croat Med J 57(6):527–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Voronov AA, Koroleva AM, Kitas GD (2019) comprehensive approach to open access publishing: platforms and tools. J Korean Med Sci 34(27):e184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nikiphorou E, Studenic P, Ammitzbøll CG, Canavan M, Jani M, Ospelt C, Berenbaum F (2017) Social media use among young rheumatologists and basic scientists: results of an international survey by the Emerging EULAR Network (EMEUNET). Ann Rheum Dis 76(4):712–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Singh AG, Singh S, Singh PP (2012) YouTube for information on rheumatoid arthritis–a wakeup call? J Rheumatol 39(5):899–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Surviving and Thriving in a Social Health Care Environment. http://www.washingtonarthritisrheumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/ACR-Social-Media-Guide.pdf. Accessed Aug 8 2019
  7. 7.
    Forgie SE, Duff JP, Ross S (2013) Twelve tips for using Twitter as a learning tool in medical education. Med Teach 35(1):8–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Berenbaum F (2014) The social (media) side to rheumatology. Nat Rev Rheumatol 10(5):314–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kocyigit BF, Nacitarhan V, Koca TT, Berk E (2019) YouTube as a source of patient information for ankylosing spondylitis exercises. Clin Rheumatol 38(6):1747–1751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tolu S, Yurdakul OV, Basaran B, Rezvani A (2018) English-language videos on YouTube as a source of information on self-administer subcutaneous anti-tumour necrosis factor agent injections. Rheumatol Int 38(7):1285–1292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kocyigit BF, Akaltun MS (2019) Does YouTube provide high quality information? Assessment of secukinumab videos. Rheumatol Int 39(7):1263–1268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    EULAR Online Courses. https://emeunet.eular.org/eular_online_courses.cfm. Accessed Aug 8 2019
  13. 13.
    El Miedany Y (2015) e-Rheumatology: are we ready? Clin Rheumatol 34(5):831–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Negrón JB (2019) #EULAR2018: the Annual European Congress of Rheumatology—a Twitter hashtag analysis. Rheumatol Int 39(5):893–899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    A Home for #10DoT. https://10daysoftwitter.wordpress.com/. Accessed Aug 29 2019
  16. 16.
    Annual European Congress of Rheumatology Social Media Rules and Regulations. http://congress2018.eular.org/myUploadData/files/EULAR_2018_Social_Media_Rules_and_Regulations_final.pdf. Accessed Aug 29 2019
  17. 17.
    Reuter K, Danve A, Deodhar A (2019) Harnessing the power of social media: how can it help in axial spondyloarthritis research? Curr Opin Rheumatol 31(4):321–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Howells L, Chisholm A, Cotterill S, Chinoy H, Warren RB, Bundy C (2018) Impact of disease severity, illness beliefs, and coping strategies on outcomes in psoriatic arthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 70(2):295–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dzubur E, Khalil C, Almario CV, Noah B, Minhas D, Ishimori M, Arnold C, Park Y, Kay J, Weisman MH, Spiegel BMR (2019) Patient concerns and perceptions regarding biologic therapies in ankylosing spondylitis: insights from a large-scale survey of social media platforms. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 71(2):323–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gasparyan AY, Nurmashev B, Yessirkepov M, Udovik EE, Baryshnikov AA, Kitas GD (2017) The journal impact factor: moving toward an alternative and combined scientometric approach. J Korean Med Sci 32(2):173–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Muñoz-Velandia OM, Fernández-Ávila DG, Patino-Hernandez D, Gómez AM (2019) Metrics of activity in social networks are correlated with traditional metrics of scientific impact in endocrinology journals. Diabetes Metab Syndr 13(4):2437–2440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eysenbach G (2011) Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. J Med Internet Res 13(4):e123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Erdt M, Nagarajan A, Sin SCJ, Theng Y-L (2016) Altmetrics: an analysis of the state-of-the-art in measuring research impact on social media. Scientometrics 109(2):1117–1166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Who’s saying what about your published work? https://www.altmetric.com/audience/researchers/. Accessed 2 Aug 2019
  25. 25.
    #RheumChat. http://simpletasks.org/rheumchat/. Accessed 2 Aug 2019
  26. 26.
    Lasker R, Vicneswararajah N (2015) Using Twitter to teach problem-based learning. Med Educ 49:531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Venuturupalli RS, Sufka P, Bhana S (2019) Digital medicine in rheumatology: challenges and opportunities. Rheum Dis Clin N Am 45(1):113–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pershad Y, Hangge PT, Albadawi H, Oklu R (2018) Social medicine: Twitter in healthcare. J Clin Med 7(6):121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Liu HY, Beresin EV, Chisolm MS (2019) Social media skills for professional development in psychiatry and medicine. Psychiatr Clin N Am 42(3):483–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mohammadi E, Thelwall M, Kwasny M, Holmes KL (2018) Academic information on Twitter: a user survey. PLoS One 13(5):e0197265.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197265 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wadhwa V, Latimer E, Chatterjee K, Mccarty J, Fitzgerald R (2017) Maximizing the tweet engagement rate in academia: analysis of the AJNR Twitter feed. Am J Neuroradiol 38(10):1866–1868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Farnan JM, Snyder Sulmasy L, Worster BK, Chaudhry HJ, Rhyne JA, Arora VM (2013) American College of Physicians Ethics, Professionalism and Human Rights Committee; American College of Physicians Council of Associates; Federation of State Medical Boards Special Committee on Ethics and Professionalism*. Online medical professionalism: patient and public relationships: policy statement from the American College of Physicians and the Federation of State Medical Boards. Ann Intern Med 158(8):620–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Greysen SR, Chretien KC, Kind T, Young A, Gross CP (2012) Physician violations of online professionalism and disciplinary actions: a national survey of state medical boards. JAMA 307(11):1141–1142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Peled Y (2019) Cyberbullying and its influence on academic, social, and emotional development of undergraduate students. Heliyon 5(3):e01393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    HIPAA Social Media Rules https://www.hipaajournal.com/hipaa-social-media/. Accessed 25 Sep 2019
  36. 36.
    Gasparyan AY, Nurmashev B, Voronov AA, Gerasimov AN, Koroleva AM, Kitas GD (2016) The pressure to publish more and the scope of predatory publishing activities. J Korean Med Sci 31(12):1874–1878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Memon AR, Azim ME (2018) Predatory conferences: addressing researchers from developing countries. J Pak Med Assoc 68(11):1691–1695PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Delgado-López PD, Corrales-García EM (2018) Influence of internet and social media in the promotion of alternative oncology, CancerQuackery, and the Predatory Publishing Phenomenon. Cureus 10(5):e2617PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Internal Medicine #2Danylo Halytsky Lviv National Medical UniversityLvivUkraine
  2. 2.Department of Therapy #1 and Medical DiagnosticsDanylo Halytsky Lviv National Medical UniversityLvivUkraine

Personalised recommendations