#SoMe for #IC: Optimal use of social media in interventional cardiology

Development of a Medical Social Media Ethics Scale and Assessment of #IRad, #CardioTwitter, and #MedTwitter Posts: Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

Social media posts by clinicians are not bound by the same rules as peer-reviewed publications, raising ethical concerns that have not been extensively characterized or quantified.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to develop a scale to assess ethical issues on medical social media (SoMe) and use it to determine the prevalence of these issues among posts with 3 different hashtags: #MedTwitter, #IRad, and #CardioTwitter.

METHODS

A scale was developed based on previous descriptions of professionalism and validated via semistructured cognitive interviewing with a sample of 11 clinicians and trainees, interrater agreement, and correlation of 100 posts. The final scale assessed social media posts in 6 domains. This was used to analyze 1500 Twitter posts, 500 each from the 3 hashtags. Analysis of posts was limited to original Twitter posts in English made by health care professionals in North America. The prevalence of potential issues was determined using descriptive statistics and compared across hashtags using the Fisher exact and χ2 tests with Yates correction.

RESULTS

The final scale was considered reflective of potential ethical issues of SoMe by participants. There was good interrater agreement (Cohen κ=0.620, P<.01) and moderate to strong positive interrater correlation (=0.602, P<.001). The 6 scale domains showed minimal to no interrelation (Cronbach α=0.206). Ethical concerns across all hashtags had a prevalence of 1.5% or less except the conflict of interest concerns on #IRad, which had a prevalence of 3.6% (n=18). Compared to #MedTwitter, posts with specialty-specific hashtags had more patient privacy and conflict of interest concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

The SoMe professionalism scale we developed reliably reflects potential ethical issues. Ethical issues on SoMe are rare but important and vary in prevalence across medical communities.

Social media use by cardiovascular healthcare professionals in Portugal

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Social media (SoMe) has a flourishing role in cardiovascular (CV) medicine as a facilitator of academic communication not only during conferences and congresses, but also by scientific societies and journals. However, there is no solid data illustrating the use of SoMe by CV healthcare professionals (CVHP) in Portugal. Hence, the main goal of this national cross-sectional survey was to accurately characterize SoMe use by Portuguese CVHPs.

METHODS

A 35-item questionnaire was specifically developed for this study, approved by the Digital Health Study Group of the Portuguese Society of Cardiology (SPC), and sent, by e-mail, to the mailing list of the SPC (including 1293 potential recipients).

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

There were 206 valid answers. Fifty-two percent of respondents were female and 58% were younger than 44 years of age with almost two out of three participants being physicians. Ninety-two percent of the survey participants reported that they are currently using SoMe; LinkedIn was the most common platform used for professional purposes. Sixty-four percent believed SoMe had had a positive impact on their clinical practice; 77% and 49% had used SoMe for acquiring and sharing information related to COVID-19, respectively. In conclusion, the majority of Portuguese CVHPs that participated in this survey are actively using SoMe, with a greater participation of those <45 years of age; its clinical impact is positive, with a leading role in the dissemination of evidence during the COVID pandemic.

Social Media and Professional Conduct (SMART): Best Practice Guidelines from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN)

Social media has revolutionized internet communication and become ubiquitous in modern life. Though it originated as a medium for friendship, social media has evolved into an ideal venue for professional networking, scientific exchange, and brand building. As such, it is a powerful tool with which interventional pain physicians should become familiar. However, given the permanence and visibility of online posts, it is prudent for interventional pain physicians to utilize social media in a manner that is consistent with the ethical and professionalism standards to which they are held by their patients, employers, peers, and state medical boards. While there are extensive publications of professional codes of conduct by medical societies, there is a paucity of literature regarding social media best practices guidelines. Further, to date there have been no social media best practices recommendations specific to interventional pain medicine physicians. While not exhaustive, the aim of this document is to provide recommendations to pain physicians on how to maintain an effective professional and ethical online presence. Specifically, we provide guidance on online persona and professional image, patient–physician interactions online, patient privacy, industry relations, patient education, and brand building.

The use of social media for professional purposes by healthcare professionals: the #intEHRAct survey

Social media (SoMe) represents a medium of communication in everyday life and has gained importance for professional use among clinicians. In the #intEHRAct survey, we aimed to describe the use of SoMe by the healthcare community in a professional setting. The EHRA e-Communication Committee and the Scientific Initiatives Committee prepared a questionnaire and distributed it via newsletters, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook. The survey consisted of 19 questions made on an individual basis and collected anonymously. Two hundred and eighty-five responders from 35 countries (72.3% male, age 49 ± 11 years old) completed the survey. Most respondents (42.7%) declared to use SoMe as passive users while 38.3% and 19.0% declared to share content on a non-daily and daily basis, respectively. The respondents estimated they spent a median of 5 (Q1-Q3: 2-10) h per week on SoMe. The most widely used SoMe was LinkedIn (60.8%), but the use of each platform was heterogeneous between countries. Among the advantages of SoMe, respondents indicated the chance of being updated on recent publications (66.0%), networking (48.5%), and the availability of rare or interesting cases (47.9%) as the most useful. Regarding the disadvantages of SoMe, the respondents underlined the loss of personal contact (40.7%), the inability to get 'hands-on' training (38.7%), and the lack of control regarding quality of scientific evidence (37.1%). Social media is increasingly used for professional purposes for scientific updating, networking, and case-based learning. The results of this survey encourage scientific societies, journals, and authors to enhance the quality, reach and impact of scientific content provided through SoMe.

Hot topics in interventional cardiology: Proceedings from the society for cardiovascular angiography and interventions (SCAI) 2021 think tank

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) Think Tank is a collaborative venture that brings together interventional cardiologists, administrative partners, and select members of the cardiovascular industry community annually for high-level field-wide discussions. The 2021 Think Tank was organized into four parallel sessions reflective of the field of interventional cardiology: (a) coronary intervention, (b) endovascular medicine, (c) structural heart disease, and (d) congenital heart disease. Each session was moderated by a senior content expert and co-moderated by a member of SCAI's Emerging Leader Mentorship program. This document presents the proceedings to the wider cardiovascular community in order to enhance participation in this discussion, create additional dialog from a broader base, and thereby aid SCAI, the industry community and external stakeholders in developing specific action items to move these areas forward.