Impact Social Media on Healthcare Annotated Bibliography

Impact Social Media on Healthcare Annotated Bibliography ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED AND ORIGINAL ESSAY PAPERS ON Impact Social Media on Healthcare Annotated Bibliography HI, I UPLOADED MY INSTRUCTION FILE AND MY 8 SOURCES. YOU WILL NEED 12 SOURCES FOR THIS ASSIGNMENT. I ALREADY RESEARCH 8 SOURCES FOR YOU. YOU WILL NEED TO RESEARCH 4 SOURCES BY YOURSELF AND Sources can include books, article, monographs, websites and other documents. All sources should be substantial in length and content. All articles should come from appropriate professional journals. PLEASE LOOK AT ALL FILES WHICH I UPLOADED. I don’t know how many pages will have for this assignment. I think It will have more than 4 pages. PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTION. Impact Social Media on Healthcare Annotated Bibliography annotated_bibliography.docx sources.docx Annotated Bibliography Topic- Impact Social Media on Healthcare The goal of this assignment is to aid the student in gaining in-depth knowledge of a specific healthcare management topic. Each student will select a specific healthcare management topic during the first week of class. The topic selected by the student will be the subject of the first three assignments. The student will start the project by completing a thorough literature review. After the literature review has been completed the student will write an annotated bibliography as described below. After completing the research on the topic and writing the annotated bibliography, the student will write a paper that meets the deliverables listed with Assignment Two. Last, the student will develop a class presentation on the topic. The deliverables for this phase of the project are listed under Assignment Three. A list of potential topics is attached to the end of this syllabus. This list is not intented to be exhaustive but rather to make suggestions. Other topics can be selected but should be reviewed with the instructor before beginning work on the assignment. Each student will independently develop an annotated bibliography of twelve (12) sources on your topic. Sources can include books, article, monographs, websites and other documents. All sources should be substantial in length and content. All articles should come from appropriate professional journals. Each annotated bibliography entry must consist of a full citation using APA format followed by text of approximately 150 words summarizing and critiquing that source in terms of its quality and relevance to the topic. If your journal articles have abstracts, you can include the abstract. However, you cannot use the abstract as a substitute for your summary since an abstract is simply descriptive while the annotation is not only descriptive but also critical but keep in mind the limited number of words allowed for each annotation. Begin each entry with the appropriate citation using APA format. After the citation provide a paragraph that summarizes the article followed by your evaluation of the article. Keep in mind that the purpose of the annotation is to inform the reader of the relevance, accuracy, and quality of the sources cited. Do not accept No grammar, spelling or punctuation errors. There are many sources on the Internet that describe annotated bibliographies. I have found the following two websites to be particularly helpful, easy to read and provide examples. I would encourage you to visit these two websites. http://guides.library.cornell.edu/annotatedbibliography (Links to an external site.) Impact Social Media on Healthcare Annotated Bibliography http://www.wisc.edu/writing/Handbook/AnnotatedBibliography.html (Links to an external site.) The following website provides a summary of one approach to critically analyzing information sources. You might find this site useful to guide your evaluation of your sources. http://guides.library.cornell.edu/criticallyanalyzing (Links to an external site.) Research Topic in Healthcare Management is “Insuring Patient Safety.” Written Report Grading Rubric Evaluation Criteria 0 point 7 Points 8 points 10 points (weight) Excellent grasp of Demonstrates No clear focus, basic poorly organized, understanding of Topic/Content ( 60) and presentation subject material, indicates a lack of but presentation understanding of fails to link the subject content to course material. concepts and objectives. key issues Good grasp of key issues and links to at least one key course objective or concept. supported by logical, complete, and cohesive arguments with links to course objectives and concepts. Demonstrates critical thinking Score related to resource materials. Addresses less Addresses a than half of the majority of the Requirements key requirements key requirements (25) as required in the as required project project description. description. Addresses all of Addresses all of the key the key requirements of requirements of the project the project description bur description and does not meet the meets the required required format. format. Few grammar, Numerous Written Report Technical Requirements (15) Some obvious spelling and/or No grammar, grammar, spelling grammar, spelling punctuation spelling or and/or punctuation and/or errors. Paper of punctuation errors. Incorrect punctuation correct length errors. Paper of spacing or errors. Some with few if any proper length with formatting errors. incorrect formatting errors. appropriate Less than required formatting errors. Reference list margins, headings length. Reference Paper slightly and illustrations. presented list consistently short of required properly and with Reference list is contain errors length. Reference sufficient quantity complete and and/or missing list has few and quality to footnotes. errors. support thesis of errors. paper. without technical SOURCE #1 How patients’ use of social media impacts their interactions with healthcare professionals Author links open overlay panelA.BenetoliabT.F.ChenaP.Aslania Show more https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2017.08.015Get rights and content Highlights • Patients were empowered by using social media for health-related purposes. • Patients could participate more actively in the treatment decision-making processes. • The use of social media by patients improved their relationship with their healthcare professionals. • However overt or tacit opposition from healthcare professionals was reported. Abstract Introduction Patients are increasingly accessing online health information and have become more participatory in their engagement with the advent of social media (SM). This study explored how patients’ use of SM impacted their interactions with healthcare professionals (HCPs). Methods Focus groups (n = 5) were conducted with 36 patients with chronic conditions and on medication who used SM for health-related purposes. The discussions lasted 60– 90 min, were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analysed. Results Participants did not interact with HCPs on SM and were not expecting to do so as they used SM exclusively for peer interactions. Most reported improvement in the patientHCP relationship due to increased knowledge, better communication, and empowerment. Impact Social Media on Healthcare Annotated Bibliography Participants supplemented HCP-provided information with peer interactions on SM, and prepared themselves for consultations. They shared online health information with HCPs, during consultations, to validate it and to actively participate in the decision-making. Although some participants reported HCP support for their online activities, most perceived overt or tacit opposition. Conclusion Participants perceived that their SM use positively impacted relationships with HCPs. They felt empowered and were more assertive in participating in decision-making. Practice implications HCPs should be aware of patients’ activities and expectations, and support them in their online activities. • • Previous article in issue Next article in issue Keywords Social media Patients Chronic conditions Decision-making Empowerment Healthcare professionals 1. Introduction The Internet has increased access to a range of health-related information, and its evolution to Web 2.0 has provided a more participatory environment where users develop and disseminate online content. Web 2.0 has provided the technological foundation for the appearance of social media platforms [1]. Web 2.0 has allowed the development of easy-to-use and interactive platforms where individuals and communities share, co-create, discuss, and modify user-generated content (e.g. texts, images, audios, videos, games) employing mobile and web-based technologies [2]. Social media (SM), dubbed the “participative Internet” [3], has therefore been enabled through the evolution of Web 2.0. Putting it simply, SM consists of a wide range of websites and applications whose content is created by Internet users [1]. It has provided a new venue for public communication, including health communication [4]. As a result, SM has turned out to be not only an emerging trend for patients seeking health information [5], but also a venue for them to interact with one another. Online communities of patients with a shared health problem have become common [6]. Popular topics discussed include disease symptoms, prognosis, examinations and procedures, and treatments [7]. Besides getting additional useful information directly from peers [8], online patients have also obtained social support for self-management of their chronic conditions [9]. It has been argued that patients’ access to online health information can impact their relationship with healthcare professionals (HCPs) [10]. As Web 2.0 and SM are dynamic communication technologies with increasing penetration in people’s daily lives, it is vital to keep abreast of changes in its use by patients. Additionally, it is important to fully comprehend how patients are accessing health services and interacting with their HCPs after engaging with peers on social media. Findings from the literature have revealed that patient participation in health-related discussions on SM and other online forums could have an impact on the patient-HCP relationship. Patients have felt empowered and confident with the knowledge and support obtained online [11], [12] and consequently have asked more relevant questions and communicated better with HCPs [11], [13], [14], [15], [16]. However, on the flip side, it has been claimed that patients’ active participation in online health activities with peers could threaten HCP expertise in some cases [17] leading them to negatively react to patients’ online autonomous health activities. This in turn could have a disempowering effect on patients [18]. Patients have ended up looking for other health providers in response to a physician’s negative attitude or due to the recommendation of “good doctors” from peers [15]. Chiu and Hsieh [13] investigated how cancer patients wrote (and read) blogs about their condition and the impact of such activity on their illness experience. Cancer patients reconstructed their life story in the blog, articulated their expected end of life and how they wished to be remembered after death [13]. Impact Social Media on Healthcare Annotated Bibliography Using in-person and virtual focus groups, Rupert et al. [18] found that patients used online health communities or support groups to obtain information not provided by HCPs and discussed information obtained online with their clinicians, positively impacting the patient-HCP relationship [11], [18]. An Australian study [17] employing interviews explored the use of online support groups by men with prostate cancer. It showed that the online environment allowed patients to share private information without the constraints imposed by face-to-face social interactions. However, medical specialists perceived this behaviour as a threat to their expert status and control over decision-making processes [17]. A recent review by Smailhodzic et al. [19] about the use of SM in healthcare incorporated studies dealing with patients’ use of SM and its influence on their relationship with HCPs. While recognizing the limited number of studies on this topic, the authors proposed that SM use by patients increased their empowerment leading to a more equalized power balance between patients and HCPs. Considering the relative novelty and relevance of the topic, further research is deemed necessary. A comprehensive understanding of patients’ use, perceptions, and opinions about the use of SM for health-related purposes is important in order to design services that meet their needs and expectations. Moreover, further research is necessary in order to better understand SM’s potential for supporting patient-HCP relationships [20]. Therefore, the aim of this research was to explore patients’ experiences, opinions and perceptions about their use of SM for health-related purposes. Specifically, the study objectives, reported here, were to determine the impact of these online activities on patients’ inperson healthcare services use and health decision-making behaviour; and its effect on patient-HCP relationships. 2. Methods 2.1. Focus groups A qualitative approach was used to allow participants to articulate their experiences, and help elicit in-depth information from them [21]. Focus groups were chosen because they are an efficient way of gathering the views of several individuals simultaneously [22], uncovering important constructs that may not be tapped through individual interviews [23]. A focus group guide (Appendix 1 in Supplementary materials) was developed to address the broad research aims. Findings pertaining to the questions on impact of SM on healthcare services use and healthcare professional interactions have been reported here. 2.2. Participants and recruitment 2.2.1. Inclusion criteria Participant inclusion criteria were: 1) adults with a chronic disease, 2) taking a medication for that disease, 3) had used SM for health-related purposes in the last 12 months, and 4) able to participate in the study without the assistance of a translator. 2.2.2. Recruitment All participants were recruited from the Sydney metropolitan area by a market research company. Impact Social Media on Healthcare Annotated Bibliography They received detailed verbal and written information about the study. Forty participants were recruited and thirty-six participated in the discussions. Each participant was reimbursed AUD$80 for their time and travel expenses. 2.3. Data collection Five focus groups were conducted in three separate dedicated venues in Sydney, Australia. All participants provided written consent and completed a demographics questionnaire. Discussions lasted 60–90 min and were facilitated by PA, a female pharmacist and academic experienced in conducting focus groups. The discussions were guided by the focus group questions (Appendix 1 in Supplementary materials) and audio-recorded. Focus groups were conducted until data saturation [24], which was at the conclusion of the fourth focus group. One additional focus group was conducted for validation purposes. 2.4. Data analysis Note taking during discussions and debriefing immediately after ensured that important information was not ignored and constituted a preliminary analysis [23]. Therefore the data analysis started during and in parallel with data collection [25]. All audio-recordings were transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed [26]. Thematic analysis was chosen as it is not aligned with a particular epistemological, philosophical, or theoretical approach and is a flexible tool to generate themes in qualitative research [26]. Repeated reading of notes and transcriptions afforded familiarity with the data. Transcriptions were then coded line-by-line, by AB, with the assistance of NVivo 11® (QSR International), and discussed with PA. Coding was open, not restricted by theoretical assumptions and was dynamic and iteratively developed throughout the analysis. An inductive approach [27] assured a data-driven analysis. Codes with a repeated pattern across the data were collated together and grouped into sub-themes and later assembled into overarching themes. 3. Results A total of 36 participants (Table 1) took part in the focus groups (n = 5). A wide range of chronic disease states (e.g. hypertension, depression, anxiety, cancer, arthritis, Crohn’s disease) was represented among the participants. Table 1. Participants’ demographics. Characteristic Participants (n = 36) Sex Female 17 (47%) Characteristic Participants (n = 36) Male 19 (53%) Age Range 27–71 Mean ± SD 47.3 ± 10.2 Country of birth Australia 26 (72%) England 2 (5.5%) New Zealand 2 (5.5%) Other 6 (17%) Education Less than High School 3 (8%) High School 11 (30%) College or Technical Education (TAFE)a 6 (17%) Undergraduate 12 (33%) Postgraduate 2 (6%) Data missing 2 (6%) Employment status Full-time 18 (50%) Part-time 9 (25%) Home duties 3 (8%) Retired 2 (6%) Unemployed 4 (11%) Self-reported health status Excellent/very good 14 (39%) Fair 17 (47%) Poor/very poor 5 (14%) Three overarching themes related to the impact of SM in patients’ interactions with HCPs and health care services emerged from the analysis. Table 2 provides a sample of quotations illustrating such themes. Table 2. Overarching themes and respective quotation sample. Themes Illustrative quotations “I think, if you know the language and you’re familiar with concepts and closer to a level that a doctor understands or operates in, it’s a little bit easier, the interaction” [Focus group (FG)2, female participant (f)10] SM use and its impact on interactions with HCPs “I think if you prepare yourself for a session with the doctor, you know what exactly you want to ask; they can answer” [FG5, f31] “I think they [HCPs] probably take you a bit more seriously when you know your stuff, because they can’t fool you around, because they know that you have the answers” Impact Social Media on Healthcare Annotated Bibliography [FG2, f12] “I have questions mentally prepared, questions which I think are going to be pragmatic for me and kind of get the information directly from a professional” [FG5, m35] “I’ve gone to my doctor with the information. So, I don’t just take it literally until I get further into it and then I’ll decide or speak to the doctor about it” [FG4, f27] “I was like pretty helpless … other times just gets really confusing if I tell them my stuff and then they tell me other stuff” [FG3, m19] Decision-making process “I was on a discussion group on polycystic ovaries. And there was this talk about metformin. Well, that’s for diabetes. Where’s the connection? But some doctors had discovered that metformin worked really well for polycystic ovaries because are insulin resistant. So I went to my doctor with that and he gave me puzzled look. He said ‘give me a week and I’ll read up’. And within that week I went back and he immediately put me on it” [FG1, f8] “I was having a problem with a high blood pressure tablet. I was getting dizzy, sick. And I said to the doctor ‘there’s something wrong with me’. He said ‘just give it some time’. So I went on to the forum and people had the same problem. They said ‘tell your doctor he’s wrong and get off that, and tell him you want to try Drug XX or something else’ … then I went back to the doctor and I told him and he changed the medication. Perfect. But if I stayed with the doctor’s advice and never checked it myself, I’d feel sick all the time” [FG2, m13] “I go to my doctor once a fortnight. I skipped the last two meetings. I was getting more online than I was in the office” [FG3, m20] SM use and its impact on healthcare services usage “I have one [GP], but then … I would do research and come to idea that I have some problem … I would ask and insist on certain tests and then if she refused … I found few other doctors that are completely okay with that” [FG3, f16] “Maybe it saves you the trip to the doctor… because you’re informed and can go to the pharmacist” [FG5, m35] “I used SM to figure out who are the good doctors and who are the bad doctors” [FG5, m35] 3.1. SM use and its impact on interactions with HCPs No participant reported interacting with HCPs via SM. Only digital communication technology predating SM (e.g. chatroom) was used for communicating with HCPs. For example, non-government organisations like BeyondBlue (beyondblue.org.au) and Black Dog Institute (blackdoginstitute.org.au) were cited as useful online resources where psychologists and psychiatrists could be accessed for live chats. Participants received private counseling and referral to other services if needed. A private service named “Ask the Doctor” (askthedoctor.com), where … Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100 Use the following coupon code : NURSING10