Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Michelle C. Farabough1, MSKM; Frances K. Wen1, PhD; Cecelia Brown2, PhD, MLIS; Lynn Yeager3, MLIS; Steven D. Shelton4, MLIS 1 University of Oklahoma School of Community Medicine, Department of Family Medicine, Tulsa, OK; 2 University of Oklahoma, School of Library and Information Studies, Norman, OK;
3University of Oklahoma-‐Tulsa, Department of Health Sciences and Information Management, Tulsa, OK; 4 University of Arkansas, Borehm Library, Fort Smith, AR
Using Web 2.0 Social Technology to Build a Cyber-infrastructure for an Interdisciplinary Biomedical Research Community of Practice
INTRODUCTION
The goal of this study is to evaluate the utility of Web 2.0 social technology for health care research by investigating the viability, and then analyzing the use and associated opinions of research team members to ascertain benefits for and barriers to improved collaboration, knowledge sharing and communication.
Purpose: Web 2.0 Social Technologies in Healthcare
Methods: Exploring Innovations in Peer-to-Peer Collaboration
The study explored innovative methods to facilitate collaboration, knowledge sharing, and communication among a 13-‐member multidisciplinary biomedical research Community of Practice (CoP) comprised of faculty and resident physicians, staff, and students from two major southwestern universities and an institute of brain research.
Identified strengths and weaknesses of Web 2.0 social technologies using a SWOT analysis
Architected a basic wiki with user-‐friendly interface, and then invited and trained users
Analyzed CoP email and wiki usage
Administered a survey using Survey Monkey to obtain CoP perceptions
Analyzed 3-‐month baseline data
The University of Oklahoma is an equal opportunity institution.
References
1. -‐100-‐ social-‐media/. Accessed 8/4/2010
2.bid/5326/Learning-‐From-‐Leaders-‐The-‐Inc-‐500-‐and-‐Social-‐Media-‐Usage.aspx. Accessed 8/2/2010
3. https://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Business_Technology/BT_Strategy/How_companies_are_benefiting_from_Web_20_
4.McKinsey_Global_Survey_Results_2432. Accessed 8/2/2010 5.
-‐of-‐the-‐internet-‐on-‐institutions-‐in-‐the-‐future. Accessed 8//2/2010
6.Extrapolations and counting by Radicati Group, May 2009
Results: Exploring Innovation and Determining a Web 2.0 Platform Discussion: Pilot Study Usage and Trends
This study examined 3-‐month baseline findings of a longitudinal, 12-‐month project.
Barriers to adoption and usage: University and professional culture Time constraints for physicians Various levels of technical savvy
University IT concern over safety of protected health information (PHI)
Benefits to adoption and usage: Increase university awareness of the capabilities of Web 2.0 social technologies No additional cost to universities IT assistance not required; easily implemented without programming expertise Asynchronous communication to bridge gaps in time and location Shared resources and knowledge Real-‐time documentation and project management CoP members perceive wiki is more efficient than email for sharing, organizing and finding information The easier the task, the more likely CoP members use the wiki
Web 2.0 social technologies enable and facilitate social networking, participation, communication, and knowledge sharing. They aid in the creation of an organic knowledge base for a Community of Practice (CoP), built as a byproduct of team collaboration.
A new generation of the Internet advances to platform Service-‐as-‐a-‐Software (SaaS) solutions.
Facebook usage increased 700%, and Twitter usage increased 3,712% from 4/2009 to 4/20101.
Social media usage increases 15% among Inc. 500 companies2.
69% of McKinsey survey respondents report measureable benefits of Web 2.0 social technologies in business3.
Technology experts responding to a Pew survey believe innovative online cooperation could result in more efficient for-‐profit, non-‐profit, and government agencies by 2020, but they express concern over resistance to change4.
Email is recognized as the number one social software application5.
Although the importance of multidisciplinary health care research and accompanying funding opportunities continues to increase, few evidence-‐based results of Web 2.0 social technology use in health care are available.
Background: Read/Write Web Gaining Popularity
Limitations: A relatively small number of committee members and access to only preliminary baseline data placed certain limitations on the ability to draw conclusions and make inferences from results.
Future Directions: Analyzing committee email and wiki usage and repeating the survey subsequent to wiki implementation after 6-‐ and 12-‐months will aid in evaluation. Additional outcome measures are recommended.
Authors have initiated a similar study for a Community-‐based Participatory Research (CBPR) CoP
Further evidence-‐based investigation of Web 2.0 social technologies for peer-‐to-‐peer (P2P) collaboration and communication in health care research are necessary.
Limitations and Future Direction
Selection Criteria for Web 2.0 Platform
Criteria Considerations PBworks*
Hosting Internal or external servers External server Pricing Open source; commercial licensing;
subscription-‐based Free subscription for non-‐commercial, education projects
Security HIPAA compliant; mail encryption Not posting protected health information (PHI); use university email
Interoperability IT technology and policies Does not interface with MOSS SharePoint Content Access Access and authoring granularity for
internal and external users Secure url with robust, granular access levels for users
Communication Mix
Blogs, wikis, forums, comments, instant messaging; chat; voice collaboration; microblogging
Free subscription includes shared online workspace wiki and flat comments
User Interface Ease of customization; templates; training requirements; page and folder-‐level robust organization of information
Easily implemented without IT expertise; preset and custom templates; intuitive user interface; limited training needed; video tutorials and help pages provided
Content Creation Document management and import for documents, spreadsheets, and presentations; collaborative editing
Import feature for documents, spread-‐sheets, and powerpoint presentations;
-‐
Search and Tagging Retrieval of folksonomy terms Tagging; intuitive and granular searching
Linking Hypertext link to redirect user from home page to other platform elements or outside resources
images, documents, spreadsheets, pages and folders, email addresses, and urls
Notifications RSS feeds and email subscriptions Interval options, including live notification
Extras Integrated calendar; media and file attachments; plug-‐ins; user analytics
Complete audit and history trail; recent changes and visitors; plug-‐ins
*Other Web 2.0 platforms considered: MOSS SharePoint, Open Atrium, Elgg, Google Apps. See brochure.
SWOT Analysis
Helpful to achieving objective
Harmful to achieving objective
External
attributes of the
organization
Internal
attributes of the
organization W e a k n e s s e s
Digital divide in terms of technical savvy
Organizational culture, including IT policies
Reliability of information
Gaps in design and purpose
Asynchronous communication limited use of non-‐verbal cues
S t r e n g t h s Increase speed and improve access to knowledge and knowledge experts
Real time documentation
Accelerate project decisions and task time cycles
Reduce e-‐mail and costs
Increase ability to share ideas and resources
T h r e a t s HIPAA
Continuity of SaaS providers
Interoperability
MicrosoftTM market share
Security of intellectual property
O p p o r t u n i t i e s Variety and expansion of Web 2.0 technology
Variety of pricing models
Open source community
Cultural change toward interdisciplinary research and funding for health care
Consumer driven success of social networking
0102030405060
%
Perception of Wiki Efficiency
Store information
Organize information
Find information
Web analytics Over 50% of CoP members invited to access the wiki were faculty and resident physicians. Of the 13 members invited, eight (69%) accessed the wiki. Of those that accessed the wiki, 14% created a page, and 43% edited, commented, or uploaded an attachment. 36% of CoP members emailed information to the wiki administrator instead of uploading to the wiki.
Survey results Six members (46%) completed the survey. 83% were 50 years-‐of-‐age or older. 50% were faculty and resident physicians. 100% indicated comfort logging on. 83% felt comfortable editing a page. 50% felt comfortable using the search box. 33% felt comfortable creating a page.
01020304050607080
%
Measure of Comfort using Wiki
Log on
Edit a page
Create a page
Use the search box
% %
