Exploring engagement in a virtual community of practice in pediatric rehabilitation: who are non-users, lurkers, and posters?

Abstract

These findings will assist rehabilitation leaders in leveraging rehabilitation-specific virtual community of practice to improve knowledge transfer and practice in pediatric rehabilitation and disability management. Implications for Rehabilitation Communities of practice are increasingly recognized as useful knowledge transfer tools for rehabilitation professionals and are made more accessible thanks to virtual technologies. Our virtual community of practice was found to be optimized in health care organizations with an electronic culture, when the topic area had daily relevance to its target audience, and was particularly beneficial for those who have limited years of experience in pediatric rehabilitation. A strongly committed, selected leadership team with the technological skills, content expertise, and designated time to maintain the site and to nurture discussion was deemed vital in fostering knowledge exchange in this context. User-focused engagement strategies showed promise in increasing visits to the virtual community of practice. Our study supports the importance of multi-pronged approaches in enhancing health care professional knowledge and skills Findings from this study will assist rehabilitation leaders in optimally leveraging rehabilitation-specific virtual community of practice to improve knowledge transfer in pediatric rehabilitation and disability management.

Information behaviour of the millennial generation: a scoping review of medical residents and their use of social media

“…For example, Mi (2014) shows how the development of a community of practice allows librarians to extend their traditional role as information provider and take on other roles, such as educator, promoter of interaction and discussion, coordinator for the creation of learning activities, creator of a favourable atmosphere for sharing knowledge, community builder and lifelong learner. As Hurtubise et al (2017) states, virtual communities of practice have been shown to be an effective way of exchanging knowledge, while helping to improve the practice of medicine, although their implementation requires an understanding of user characteristics and of how users employ these platforms, both in the workplace and in their day‐to‐day lives.…”

¿Terapeutas ocupacionales en la educación? Caminos y posibilidades para/en América Latina y Caribe desde una Comunidad de Práctica

“…Esto significa que sus miembros utilizan las tecnologías de la información y la comunicación como su modo principal de interacción, lo que puede incluir redes sociales, aplicaciones web, plataformas o foros en línea, wikis y podcasts (Dubé et al, 2005). Si bien esta característica limita el acceso de aquellos miembros que no utilizan las tecnologías de información, o a quienes no se les hace fácil el manejo de las mismas (Hurtubise et al, 2019), si le permite a la comunidad conectar con Terapeutas Ocupacionales de diversos países, a pesar de las distancias geográficas y diferencias horarias.…”

Communities of practice: A systematic review and meta‐synthesis of what it means and how it really works among nursing students and novices

“…More specifically, Endslay et al (2005, p. 29) have identified five types of members within CoP. These participants include the leaders or facilitators who keep dialogues and processes in motion; the experts of the topic with skills or knowledge at centre of the community; those who are considered core members and who are active participants in discussions and activities; the 'lurkers' who may not be regular contributors, but may be key resources of knowledge; and peripheral members who are involved within the group as participants (Hurtubise et al, 2017). It is these peripheral members who gain greater knowledge, identity, and acceptance within the community and they have the potential to move from being at the transient periphery to becoming experts themselves (Birks et al, 2017;Cox, 2005;Johnson et al, 2012;Jorgensen & Hadders, 2015;Li et al, 2009a;Oborn & Dawson, 2010).…”