Abstract:BackgroundClinical practice variation that results in poor patient outcomes remains a pressing problem for health care organizations. Some evidence suggests that a key factor may be ineffective internal and professional networks that limit knowledge exchange among health care professionals. Virtual communities have the potential to overcome professional and organizational barriers and facilitate knowledge flow.ObjectiveThis study aimed to explore why health care professionals belong to an exemplar virtual comm… Show more
“…Explanations for observed differences in levels of interaction in online groups may inform choice of format. Murgado-Armenteros (2012) and Rolls (2019) report that there can be difficulties in achieving interaction and cohesion between participants in online synchronous focus groups, and Greenbaum (2000) and Genoe (2018) argue the lack of non-verbal cues and difficulties establishing a presence behind the computer screen can compound the problem. Nevertheless, the literature suggests that text-based synchronous and asynchronous focus groups can in some instances provide levels of interaction comparable to face-to-face groups (Gordon et al, 2021; Reisner et al, 2018; Skelton et al, 2018; Walsh et al, 2009; Woodyatt et al, 2016).…”
Online communication in our work and private lives has increased significantly since the COVID-19 pandemic. Qualitative research has evolved with this trend with many studies adopting online methods. It is therefore timely to assess the use and utility of online focus groups compared to face-to-face focus groups. Traditional Pearl Growing Methodology was used to identify eligible papers. Data were extracted on data collection methods, recruitment and sampling strategies, analytical approaches to comparing data sets, the depth of data produced, participant interactions and the required resources. A total of 26 papers were included in the review. Along with face-to-face focus groups ( n = 26) 16 studies conducted synchronous, eight asynchronous and two both online focus group methods. Most studies ( n = 22) used the same recruitment method for both face-to-face and online focus groups. A variety of approaches to compare data sets were used in studies. Of the studies reporting on depth of data ( n = 19), nine found that face-to-face groups produced the most in-depth data, four online groups and six equivalent data. Participant interaction was reported to be greater during face-to-face groups in 10 studies; three reported online groups produced greater interaction and six equivalent interaction. Detailed resource use comparisons were not presented in any of the studies. This review demonstrates that to date there is not a clear consensus as to whether face-to-face or online focus groups hold specific advantages in terms of the data produced and the resources required. Given these findings it may be appropriate for researchers to consider using online focus groups where time and resources are constrained, or where these are more practicable.
“…Explanations for observed differences in levels of interaction in online groups may inform choice of format. Murgado-Armenteros (2012) and Rolls (2019) report that there can be difficulties in achieving interaction and cohesion between participants in online synchronous focus groups, and Greenbaum (2000) and Genoe (2018) argue the lack of non-verbal cues and difficulties establishing a presence behind the computer screen can compound the problem. Nevertheless, the literature suggests that text-based synchronous and asynchronous focus groups can in some instances provide levels of interaction comparable to face-to-face groups (Gordon et al, 2021; Reisner et al, 2018; Skelton et al, 2018; Walsh et al, 2009; Woodyatt et al, 2016).…”
Online communication in our work and private lives has increased significantly since the COVID-19 pandemic. Qualitative research has evolved with this trend with many studies adopting online methods. It is therefore timely to assess the use and utility of online focus groups compared to face-to-face focus groups. Traditional Pearl Growing Methodology was used to identify eligible papers. Data were extracted on data collection methods, recruitment and sampling strategies, analytical approaches to comparing data sets, the depth of data produced, participant interactions and the required resources. A total of 26 papers were included in the review. Along with face-to-face focus groups ( n = 26) 16 studies conducted synchronous, eight asynchronous and two both online focus group methods. Most studies ( n = 22) used the same recruitment method for both face-to-face and online focus groups. A variety of approaches to compare data sets were used in studies. Of the studies reporting on depth of data ( n = 19), nine found that face-to-face groups produced the most in-depth data, four online groups and six equivalent data. Participant interaction was reported to be greater during face-to-face groups in 10 studies; three reported online groups produced greater interaction and six equivalent interaction. Detailed resource use comparisons were not presented in any of the studies. This review demonstrates that to date there is not a clear consensus as to whether face-to-face or online focus groups hold specific advantages in terms of the data produced and the resources required. Given these findings it may be appropriate for researchers to consider using online focus groups where time and resources are constrained, or where these are more practicable.
“…Recent studies have described strategic actions by health-care professionals to become members of specific networking initiatives such as ICUConnect because they need to network with colleagues in other facilities to remain up to date on clinical practices and Use of social media related topics (Rolls et al, 2019). However, Schot et al (2020) notes that more is needed to understand the contributions, roles and collaborative settings between different health professions from a theoretical, methodological and empirical perspective.…”
Section: Reasons Physician Leaders Use Social Media To Conduct Cross-boundary Activitiesmentioning
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to better understand social media (SM) factors that physician leaders need to consider, as they adapt their cross-boundary practices to engage with colleagues and patients. Firstly, this study explores why SM is being used by physicians to cross horizontal (physician to physician) and stakeholder (physician to patient) boundaries prior to COVID-19. Secondly, based on the studies reviewed, this study provides insights on the practical SM implications for physician leaders working in the COVID-19 environment to actively enhance their practices, reduce public confusion and improve patient care, thus informing health-care practices.
Design/methodology/approach
A systematic literature review was used to conduct a structured transparent overview of peer reviewed articles that describe physicians’ use of cross-boundary SM across several disciplines (e.g. health, information science). As a baseline assessment prior to COVID-19, the review synthesized 47 articles, identified and selected from six databases and Novanet. This study used NVivo 12 to thematical code the articles, leading to the emergence of four broad factors that influence SM use.
Findings
A key reason noted in the literature for physicians use of SM to cross horizontal boundaries is to share knowledge. Regarding stakeholder boundaries, the most cited reasons are to improve patient’s health and encourage behavioural changes. Insights garnered on the practical SM implications include the need for physicians to be stronger leaders in presenting trustworthy and consistent facts about health information to the public and fellow peers. As role models for the effective use of SM tools, physician leaders can mentor and coach their colleagues and counterparts.
Research limitations/implications
As this was a literature review, the authors did not collect primary data to further explore this rapidly changing and dynamic SM world. Next steps could include a survey to determine firstly, how physicians currently use SM in this COVID-19 environment, and secondly, how they could leverage it for their work. Findings from this survey will help us better understand the role of physician leaders as health-care influencers and how they could better create trust and inform the Canadian public in the health information that is being conveyed.
Practical implications
Physician leaders can play a key role in positively influencing institutional support for ethical and safe SM use and engagement practices. Physicians need to participate in developing regulations and guidelines that are fundamentally to physician leader’s SM use. Central to this research would be the need to understand how physicians cross-boundary practices have changed during and potentially post COVID-19. Physician leaders also need to monitor information sources for credibility and ensure that these sources are protected. As role models for the effective use of SM tools, physician leaders can mentor and coach their colleagues and counterparts in this area.
Originality/value
Although there have been studies of how physicians use SM, fewer studies explore why physician leaders’ cross boundaries (horizontal and stakeholder) using SM. Important insights are gained in physician leaders practical use of SM. Key themes that emerged included: organizational and individual, information, professional and regulations and guideline factors. These factors strengthen physician leaders understanding of areas of foci to enhance their cross-boundary interactions. There is an urgency to study the complexity of SM and the effectiveness of regulations and guidelines for physicians, who are being required, at an accelerated rate, to strengthen and increase their cross-boundary practices.
“…There is growing literature describing the experiences of implementing AOFGs among HCPs (Ferrante et al, 2016; K. L. Matthews et al, 2018; Tuttas, 2015; Wilkerson et al, 2014; Williams et al, 2012). AOFGs have been used to learn about professional views on end-of-life communication (Oosterveld-Vlug et al, 2017), online communities (Rolls et al, 2019), experiences of nurses seeking employment (Hancock et al, 2016), experiences implementing Medicaid policies (Gray et al, 2021), pharmacists’ role in opioid safety (Hartung et al, 2018), clinician perspectives on prescription drug monitoring programs (Hildebran et al, 2014), and virtual reality-based learning (Miller et al, 2018).…”
Introduction Online data collection methods can increase study accessibility and ease the burden of data collection for participants. Asynchronous Online Focus Groups are a promising method for data collection among healthcare professionals. Methods In this article, we describe the use of, and lessons learned from conducting 19 Asynchronous Online Focus Groups across four research studies. Results We describe our experiences preparing for, recruiting for, and conducting Asynchronous Online Focus Groups. We highlight decision points around timeframe, eligibility, recruitment, participation, focus group assignment, moderation, and participant engagement. We found that removing geographic barriers was advantageous for collecting data, focus group attrition is a concern for asynchronous formats, and group assignment may affect data. Conclusions Asynchronous Online Focus Groups are a promising method for data collection among healthcare professionals. When conducting Asynchronous Online Focus Groups researchers should consider the suitability and the unique implications of this data collection method for data quality.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.