CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 21Social Media in Health EducationInnovations in Medical EducationHealth and Medical Education

Identifying social media competencies for health professionals: an international modified Delphi study to determine consensus for curricular design

Open access
Yilmaz, Yusuf, Chan, Teresa M., Thoma, Brent, Luc, Jessica G.Y., Haas, Mary, Preiksaitis, Carl, Tran, Victoria, Gottlieb, Michael·2022·Annals of Emergency Medicine
DOI 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2022.02.016

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The use of social media by health professionals is widespread. However, there is a lack of training to support the effective use of these novel platforms that account for the nuances of an effective health and research communication. We sought to identify the competencies needed by health care professionals to develop an effective social media presence as a medical professional, with the goal of building a social media curriculum. METHODS: We conducted a modified Delphi study, utilizing Kraiger's Knowledge, Skills, and Attitudes framework to identify appropriate items for inclusion in a social media curriculum targeted at health care professionals. Experts in this space were defined as health care professionals who had delivered workshops, published papers, or developed prominent social media tools/accounts. They were recruited through a multimodal campaign to complete a series of 3 survey rounds designed to build consensus. In keeping with prior studies, a threshold of 80% endorsement was used for inclusion in the final list of items. RESULTS: Ninety-eight participants met the expert criteria and were invited to participate in the study. Of the 98 participants, 92 (94%) experts completed the first round; of the 92 experts who completed the first round, 83 (90%) completed the second round; and of the 83 experts who completed the second round, 81 (98%) completed the third round of the Delphi study. Eighteen new items were suggested in the first survey and incorporated into the study. A total of 46 items met the 80% inclusion threshold. CONCLUSION: We identified 46 items that were believed to be important for health care professionals using social media. This list should inform the development of curricular activities and objectives.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2022.02.016

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Yilmaz et al. developed a broad framework of 46 competencies across multiple domains, of which only six addressed professionalism.

    “While Yilmaz et al. developed a broad framework of 46 competencies across multiple domains, only six competencies addressed professionalism (31).”

    From Identifying social media professionalism competencies in Vietnamese medical students: a modified Delphi method (2026) · cites this paper as [31]

    The Results and Editor’s Capsule Summary report 46 consensus items spanning multiple areas. But the table in the Discussion lists five items under “E-professionalism content,” not six; other potentially related items appear under a separate behavioral or attitudinal heading. The claimed count of six professionalism competencies is therefore not supported by the paper’s categorization. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Snelgrove N, Sparks MA, Sukhera J, et al. Modernizing continuing professional development using social media. In: Hategan A, Bourgeois JA, Gangji AS, et al, eds. Psychonephrology: A Guide to Principles and Practice. Springer International Publishing; 2022:415-429.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Yilmaz, Y., Chan, T. M., Thoma, B., Luc, J. G. Y., Haas, M., Preiksaitis, C., Tran, V., & Gottlieb, M.
Affiliations
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • University of Saskatchewan (CA)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Rush University Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Gottlieb, Michael
ORCID
Venue
Annals of Emergency Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-06
Volume
79
Issue
6
Pages
560-567
ISSN
0196-0644 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.annemergmed.2022.02.016
OpenAlex
W4221113459
Cited by
21
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 4
FWCI
3.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Annals of Emergency Medicine (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Physicians' Services Incorporated Foundation
  • Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health and Medical Education
Keywords
healthcare workers, medical education, health communication, scholarly communication, expert consensus
MeSH terms
Curriculum, Delphi Technique, Health Personnel, Humans, Social Media

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review