Agree or disagree? In contemporary society, social media is becoming an increasingly large and wide-spread trend. Many people now turn to social media for various reasons such as communication, games, opinions, purchases, and other online activities. Below are examples of social media that users may engage in:
Online video game playing forms a community of players who come together to communicate, play, and learn. Furthermore, research has proven that video games can promote a player's health by boosting their educational and developmental growth (Gumulak & Webber, 2011). Education and social environment are two determinants of health that can affect a person's quality of life. By enhancing one's educational status through literacy and developmental growth through interaction by playing video games, one can improve his or her health.
Educationally, video games test for players' literacy level and critical thinking skills. For instance, since games come with limited speech or tutorials, players are encouraged to read lines of text to understand and process the information in order to find the purpose of their mission and how to complete the challenge (Gumulak & Webber, 2011).
Furthermore, online video game playing can promote a player's developmental growth since some online games set up online forums for players to interact from outside the game.
Forums are used for the sole purpose of interaction between online users. Players can engage in conversations to seek opinions or solutions to follow in order to complete a mission. However, forums are not limited to conversations regarding the video game; players can also post discussions on forums about anything such as health, relationships, life, education, and hobbies. In regards to health related forums, they can act as an empowering or disappointing tool to certain participants. For example, a study demonstrated that parents of children with genetic condition often turn to the online community for advice, support, and information instead of doctors (Ziebland & Wyke, 2012). The parents or patients believe that other people who are suffering from similar conditions hold more accurate information than doctors since they are able to experience the signs, symptoms, and the hardships of enduring the condition. The ability to read and hear other patients speak of their experiences can "affect decision making, one's sense of isolation or support, and adjustment to the illness or health condition" (Ziebland & Wyke, 2012, p.221).
Lastly, online purchasing and selling have been a trend that many consumers take part in for convenience. There are websites that allow users to purchase and sell goods locally or internationally. eBay is one such website that attracts many business-seeking individuals to buy and sell securely, easily, and quickly (eBay, 2013). Consumers can purchase health-related products such as novels, knee and back braces, and arthritis gloves.
Social media networks are created under a framework of a honeycomb of seven functional building blocks: identity, conversations, sharing, presence, relationships, reputation, and groups (Kietzmann, Hermkens, McCarthy & Silvestre, 2011).
Identity: a functional block where users identify themselves on social media websites by either their name, gender, age, date of birth, location, profession, and other personal information. By sharing one's identity on the Internet, it allows others to find or connect with the user. However, identities should be protected to some extent, such as adjusting privacy settings, to avoid being a target of cyber bullying.
Conversations: conversations enable users to communicate with others on social media. In social media, users can converse with individuals or in groups through group chats or forums. Conversations on social media have some limitations such as waiting for another user to reply.
Sharing: sharing on social media is another form of communication among users. Users can share information via photos, videos, text, or links. Sharing information online can be hazardous because information on the Internet can spread quickly and be manipulated.
Presence: a user's presence in social media calls for their availability and accessibility on social networks such as Skype and Facebook. Users can conceal their online presence by appearing 'offline' or 'away' to avoid other users from contacting them.
Relationships: relationships on social media can be found on a user's profile by identifying who 'follows', 'friends', or 'subscribes' to the user on social media such as Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, respectively. Relationships allow users to connect and share common interests.
Reputation: reputation on social media is based on trust and popularity. For example, reputation plays a huge role on online merchandising sites such as ebay and amazon. Buyers often review the sellers' feedback and ratings before purchasing from them. Popularity comes into play in the YouTube community and forums.
Groups: groups are formed within communities of social media such as Facebook groups, friends, and gaming groups. Groups allow users with common interests to share information and have fun together.
Social network, online game play, forums, and the online markets are some of the places that a user may want to visit. In addition, users with health concerns may visit social networks and forums for advice from professional figures or experienced individuals. In this case, the user who seeks health advice from third party sources as opposed to visiting a health professional for answers demonstrates the shift from an intermediation environment to an apomediation environment.
Apomediation is one of the five major aspects of Web 2.0. The other four aspects include social networking, participation, collaboration, and openness (Eysenbach, 2008).
Intermediation is a form of information seeking strategy where people rely on information given by traditional experts or authorities such as their family physician or other health care providers. On the other hand, apomediation is a form of information seeking strategy where people rely less on traditional experts or authorities (licensed doctors, nurses, or other health care professionals), and instead rely on experienced individuals and nontraditional experts such as health 'gurus' (Eysenbach, 2008). In health care, patients may refer to both the intermediation and apomediation environments. Firstly, a patient may go online and self-diagnose by researching what health condition is associated with his/her health signs and symptoms (apomediation). Then, the same patient may seek a health professional for reassurance (intermediation). Finally, after the patient is diagnosed by the health professional, he/she may seek further guidance on the Internet (apomediation). Additionally, the comparison between intermediation and apomediation can be found below:
Table 1. Issues in an apomediation vs intermediation environment. Adopted from "Medicine 2.0: Social networking, collaboration, participation, apomediation, and openess," by Eysenbach, G, 2008, Journal of Medical Internet Research, 10(3), p.6.
In addition, we also incorporated the use of apomediation during our class facilitation. We were divided into five groups of health care providers who would join a chat room. In the chat room, users would talk about their profession (nurse practitioner, midwifery nurse, clinical nurse specialist, critical care nurse, and occupational health nurse). In the discussion, I learned that information was exchanged by many students who obtained their information from various websites that could have been credible or not credible. Which led me to believe that I should take the information that I was given with a grain of salt instead of believing every single word since I would not know how credible the information is.
Social networking in Web 2.0 allows users to connect with people to facilitate collaboration. It also allows for communication, demonstrates trust, reputation, and the accountability and quality of the information shared among users (Eysenbach, 2008). In regards to health care, social networking can enable patients to communicate with their health care providers and access their electronic health records.
Participation in Medicine 2.0 enables patients to be involved in their care electronically. Patients can "access and control their personal health information and provide the possibility of consent" via the Internet instead of visiting their health care providers (Eysenbach, 2008, p. 4). In addition, patients can also adjust their privacy settings on their electronic health records.
Collaboration is the involvement and interaction between health care professionals, researchers, and the patients in the patients' care. Collaboration is an important component in Medicine 2.0 because it promotes "possibilities for knowledge translation" and understanding of health between patients and the people involved in their care (Eysenbach, 2008, p. 7).
Lastly, there is openness. Openness allows patients and the people involved in their care to have open access to data and information that has been limited to the general public. This serves as an advantage because it calls for participation and collaboration between individuals to have access to research processes and information (Eysenbach, 2008).
Web 2.0 and Medicine 2.0 have their advantages and disadvantages. An advantage of Medicine 2.0 is that the approach eliminates the hierarchy in health care where power is distributed unevenly. The new approach allows for participation and for individuals to place in equal effort into their care. Medicine 2.0 also allows individuals to have equal access to their personal health records. However, there are limitations to Web 2.0 and Medicine 2.0. The sharing of personal health information electronically raises a huge question of whether or not the process is professional or credible. Will the health care provider approach the patient professionally and where is the professional boundary? Another question raised is credibility. Since patients are allowed to view and input their own health information into their electronic records, then how reliable will the information be? Patients may not use appropriate medical terminologies or input accurate information into their health record, which may inhibit their point of care.
Overall, the Internet plays a part in many people's lives. People use the Internet for social networking, playing games, purchasing or selling goods, communicating with one another, and understanding and participating in their health. In all scenarios, there are advantages and disadvantages of going on social media, and accessing and sharing information online. With this said, one can only reflect on Weber's quote mentioned at the beginning of the blog:
"These days, one witty tweet, one clever blog post, one devastating video-- forwarded to hundreds of friends at the click of a mouse-- can snowball and kill a product or damage a company's share price."
- Tim Weber (as cited in Kietzmann, Hermkens, McCarthy & Silvestre, 2011)
eBay. (2013). About ebay. Retrieved from http://pages.ebay.ca/aboutebay.html
Eysenbach, G. (2008). Medicine 2.0: Social networking, collaboration, participation, apomediation, and openness. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 10(3), 1-10.
Facebook. (2013). Key facts. Retrieved from http://newsroom.fb.com/Key-Facts
Grumulak, S., & Webber, S. (2011). Playing video games: Learning and information literacy. New Information Perspectives, 63(2/3), 241-255.
Kietzmann, J.H., Jermkens, L., McCarthy, I.P., & Silvestre, B.S. (2011). Social media? get serious! understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business Horizons, 54, 241-251.
Ziebland, S., & Wyke, S. (2012). Health and illness in a connected world: How might sharing experiences on the internet affect people's health? A multidisciplinary journal of population health and health policy, 90(2), 219-249.
Top left: a form of communication on social media - Facebook Top right: online game on the Internet - World of Warcraft
Bottom left: a form of communication on social media - reddit Bottom right: purchasing and selling goods on the Internet - ebay
I will now focus on the strengths of the following social media in relation to how they can positively affect a consumer's health: Facebook, online games, forums, and ebay.
Facebook is an online social network that strives to "give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected" (Facebook, 2013). Facebook (2013) explains that its purpose is to allow users to connect with friends and families, to discover and keep up-to-date with society and the world, and to share and express their thoughts and opinions freely. Facebook is also a place where health and other concerns are addressed and discussed. For example, Facebook encourages users to update their profile status which includes one's work and education, relationship, families, places lived, basic information, contact information, and life events. Under life events, there is a category in which users can update their health and wellness status. Under this category, users can identify themselves as potential donors and share their story as to why they chose to become donors.
(Facebook, 2013)
In addition, within Facebook lies many communities that advocate for health. There are many groups and pages created to promote health and wellness such as "Healthy Blender Recipes" and "Daily Health Tips". Both groups allow Facebook users to interact with the group administer by commenting, sharing, and liking posts.
Online video game playing forms a community of players who come together to communicate, play, and learn. Furthermore, research has proven that video games can promote a player's health by boosting their educational and developmental growth (Gumulak & Webber, 2011). Education and social environment are two determinants of health that can affect a person's quality of life. By enhancing one's educational status through literacy and developmental growth through interaction by playing video games, one can improve his or her health.
Educationally, video games test for players' literacy level and critical thinking skills. For instance, since games come with limited speech or tutorials, players are encouraged to read lines of text to understand and process the information in order to find the purpose of their mission and how to complete the challenge (Gumulak & Webber, 2011).
Furthermore, online video game playing can promote a player's developmental growth since some online games set up online forums for players to interact from outside the game.
Forums are used for the sole purpose of interaction between online users. Players can engage in conversations to seek opinions or solutions to follow in order to complete a mission. However, forums are not limited to conversations regarding the video game; players can also post discussions on forums about anything such as health, relationships, life, education, and hobbies. In regards to health related forums, they can act as an empowering or disappointing tool to certain participants. For example, a study demonstrated that parents of children with genetic condition often turn to the online community for advice, support, and information instead of doctors (Ziebland & Wyke, 2012). The parents or patients believe that other people who are suffering from similar conditions hold more accurate information than doctors since they are able to experience the signs, symptoms, and the hardships of enduring the condition. The ability to read and hear other patients speak of their experiences can "affect decision making, one's sense of isolation or support, and adjustment to the illness or health condition" (Ziebland & Wyke, 2012, p.221).
Lastly, online purchasing and selling have been a trend that many consumers take part in for convenience. There are websites that allow users to purchase and sell goods locally or internationally. eBay is one such website that attracts many business-seeking individuals to buy and sell securely, easily, and quickly (eBay, 2013). Consumers can purchase health-related products such as novels, knee and back braces, and arthritis gloves.
Social media networks are created under a framework of a honeycomb of seven functional building blocks: identity, conversations, sharing, presence, relationships, reputation, and groups (Kietzmann, Hermkens, McCarthy & Silvestre, 2011).
Identity: a functional block where users identify themselves on social media websites by either their name, gender, age, date of birth, location, profession, and other personal information. By sharing one's identity on the Internet, it allows others to find or connect with the user. However, identities should be protected to some extent, such as adjusting privacy settings, to avoid being a target of cyber bullying.
Conversations: conversations enable users to communicate with others on social media. In social media, users can converse with individuals or in groups through group chats or forums. Conversations on social media have some limitations such as waiting for another user to reply.
Sharing: sharing on social media is another form of communication among users. Users can share information via photos, videos, text, or links. Sharing information online can be hazardous because information on the Internet can spread quickly and be manipulated.
Presence: a user's presence in social media calls for their availability and accessibility on social networks such as Skype and Facebook. Users can conceal their online presence by appearing 'offline' or 'away' to avoid other users from contacting them.
Relationships: relationships on social media can be found on a user's profile by identifying who 'follows', 'friends', or 'subscribes' to the user on social media such as Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, respectively. Relationships allow users to connect and share common interests.
Reputation: reputation on social media is based on trust and popularity. For example, reputation plays a huge role on online merchandising sites such as ebay and amazon. Buyers often review the sellers' feedback and ratings before purchasing from them. Popularity comes into play in the YouTube community and forums.
Groups: groups are formed within communities of social media such as Facebook groups, friends, and gaming groups. Groups allow users with common interests to share information and have fun together.
Social network, online game play, forums, and the online markets are some of the places that a user may want to visit. In addition, users with health concerns may visit social networks and forums for advice from professional figures or experienced individuals. In this case, the user who seeks health advice from third party sources as opposed to visiting a health professional for answers demonstrates the shift from an intermediation environment to an apomediation environment.
Apomediation is one of the five major aspects of Web 2.0. The other four aspects include social networking, participation, collaboration, and openness (Eysenbach, 2008).
Intermediation is a form of information seeking strategy where people rely on information given by traditional experts or authorities such as their family physician or other health care providers. On the other hand, apomediation is a form of information seeking strategy where people rely less on traditional experts or authorities (licensed doctors, nurses, or other health care professionals), and instead rely on experienced individuals and nontraditional experts such as health 'gurus' (Eysenbach, 2008). In health care, patients may refer to both the intermediation and apomediation environments. Firstly, a patient may go online and self-diagnose by researching what health condition is associated with his/her health signs and symptoms (apomediation). Then, the same patient may seek a health professional for reassurance (intermediation). Finally, after the patient is diagnosed by the health professional, he/she may seek further guidance on the Internet (apomediation). Additionally, the comparison between intermediation and apomediation can be found below:
Dimension
|
Intermediation
Environment
|
Disintermediation/Apomediation
Environment
|
Overarching
Issues
|
||
Environment
|
Managed
|
Autonomous
|
Power
|
Centralized; power held by intermediaries (experts,
authorities)
|
Decentralized; empowerment of information seekers
|
Dependence
|
Information seekers dependent on intermediaries (physicians,
parents); intermediaries are necessary
|
Information seekers are emancipated from intermediaries as
apomediaries (peers, technology) provide guidance;
apomediaries are optional
|
Nature
of Information Consumption
|
Consumers tend to be passive receivers of
information
|
Consumers are “prosumers” (ie,, co-producers of
information)
|
Nature
of interaction
|
Traditional 1:1 interaction between intermediary and information
seeker
|
Complex individual- and group-based interactions in a networked
environment
|
Information
filtering
|
“upstream” filtering with top-down quality assurance
mechanisms
|
“downstream filtering” with bottom-up quality assurance
mechanisms
|
Learning
|
More formal; learning through consumption of information
|
More informal; learning through participation, application, and
information production
|
Cognitive
Elaboration
|
Lower cognitive elaboration required by information
receivers
|
Higher elaboration required by information seekers;
higher cognitive load unless assistance through intelligent tools
|
User
|
More suitable for and/or desired by preadolescents, inexperienced or
less information literate consumers, or patients with acute illness
|
More suitable for and/or desired by older adolescents and adults, experienced
of information literate consumers, or patients with chronic conditions
|
Credibility
issues
|
||
Expertise
|
Based on traditional credential (eg, seniority, professional degrees)
|
Based on first-hand experience or that of peers
|
Bias
|
May promote facts over opinions, but opportunity for
intermediary to introduce biases
|
May bestow more credibility to opinions rather than
facts
|
Source
credibility
|
Based on the believability of the source’s authority; source credibility
is more important than message credibility
|
Based on believability of apomediaries; message credibility and credibility
of apomediaries are more important than source credibility
|
Message
credibility
|
Based on professional and precise language,
comprehensiveness, use of citations, etc.
|
Based on understandable language, knowing or having
experienced issues personally
|
Credibility
hubs
|
Static (experts)
|
Dynamic (opinion leaders)
|
Credibility
evaluations
|
Binary
|
Spectral
|
In addition, we also incorporated the use of apomediation during our class facilitation. We were divided into five groups of health care providers who would join a chat room. In the chat room, users would talk about their profession (nurse practitioner, midwifery nurse, clinical nurse specialist, critical care nurse, and occupational health nurse). In the discussion, I learned that information was exchanged by many students who obtained their information from various websites that could have been credible or not credible. Which led me to believe that I should take the information that I was given with a grain of salt instead of believing every single word since I would not know how credible the information is.
Social networking in Web 2.0 allows users to connect with people to facilitate collaboration. It also allows for communication, demonstrates trust, reputation, and the accountability and quality of the information shared among users (Eysenbach, 2008). In regards to health care, social networking can enable patients to communicate with their health care providers and access their electronic health records.
Participation in Medicine 2.0 enables patients to be involved in their care electronically. Patients can "access and control their personal health information and provide the possibility of consent" via the Internet instead of visiting their health care providers (Eysenbach, 2008, p. 4). In addition, patients can also adjust their privacy settings on their electronic health records.
Collaboration is the involvement and interaction between health care professionals, researchers, and the patients in the patients' care. Collaboration is an important component in Medicine 2.0 because it promotes "possibilities for knowledge translation" and understanding of health between patients and the people involved in their care (Eysenbach, 2008, p. 7).
Lastly, there is openness. Openness allows patients and the people involved in their care to have open access to data and information that has been limited to the general public. This serves as an advantage because it calls for participation and collaboration between individuals to have access to research processes and information (Eysenbach, 2008).
Web 2.0 and Medicine 2.0 have their advantages and disadvantages. An advantage of Medicine 2.0 is that the approach eliminates the hierarchy in health care where power is distributed unevenly. The new approach allows for participation and for individuals to place in equal effort into their care. Medicine 2.0 also allows individuals to have equal access to their personal health records. However, there are limitations to Web 2.0 and Medicine 2.0. The sharing of personal health information electronically raises a huge question of whether or not the process is professional or credible. Will the health care provider approach the patient professionally and where is the professional boundary? Another question raised is credibility. Since patients are allowed to view and input their own health information into their electronic records, then how reliable will the information be? Patients may not use appropriate medical terminologies or input accurate information into their health record, which may inhibit their point of care.
Overall, the Internet plays a part in many people's lives. People use the Internet for social networking, playing games, purchasing or selling goods, communicating with one another, and understanding and participating in their health. In all scenarios, there are advantages and disadvantages of going on social media, and accessing and sharing information online. With this said, one can only reflect on Weber's quote mentioned at the beginning of the blog:
"These days, one witty tweet, one clever blog post, one devastating video-- forwarded to hundreds of friends at the click of a mouse-- can snowball and kill a product or damage a company's share price."
- Tim Weber (as cited in Kietzmann, Hermkens, McCarthy & Silvestre, 2011)
eBay. (2013). About ebay. Retrieved from http://pages.ebay.ca/aboutebay.html
Eysenbach, G. (2008). Medicine 2.0: Social networking, collaboration, participation, apomediation, and openness. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 10(3), 1-10.
Facebook. (2013). Key facts. Retrieved from http://newsroom.fb.com/Key-Facts
Grumulak, S., & Webber, S. (2011). Playing video games: Learning and information literacy. New Information Perspectives, 63(2/3), 241-255.
Kietzmann, J.H., Jermkens, L., McCarthy, I.P., & Silvestre, B.S. (2011). Social media? get serious! understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business Horizons, 54, 241-251.
Ziebland, S., & Wyke, S. (2012). Health and illness in a connected world: How might sharing experiences on the internet affect people's health? A multidisciplinary journal of population health and health policy, 90(2), 219-249.
No comments:
Post a Comment