HLPM300 SUNY Impact Social Media on Healthcare Annotated Bibliography HI, I UPLOADED MY INSTRUCTION FILE AND MY 8 SOURCES. YOU WILL NEED 12 SOURCES FOR THI

HLPM300 SUNY 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. 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.)
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. 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]. 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. 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” [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…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment