Posts Tagged ‘blogs’


Rumours of my death – CPD23 thing 3

In CPD23 on June 27, 2011 by africker Tagged: , , , ,

I am lucky enough to have a fairly unusual first name second name combination.  There are no movie stars cluttering up mentions of my name online (Brenda Fricker used to be good for telephone spelling requests but her departure from Casualty has resulted in a notable reduction in the population wide knowledge of how to spell Fricker).  The first ten hits on Google are mostly related to me with my LinkedIn, Twitter, and Biog from HLG conference included.  The notable false drop is the other main Alan Fricker on the web.  An environmentalist in New Zealand his death was the first thing a Google Alert I set up ever told me about my name (the perils of vanity test searches).  The other major false drop is from Facebook.  This Blog shows up on the second page of results (as does Movember from last year).  Not much of a surprise to me are a few Jiscmail mentions as I have long been active on these.  I would suggest this is actually part of my personal brand – active.

Generally I have been happy to put my own name to my activity online (also shortened versions as my name is distinct enough for people in my sector to recognise me).  My main blogging outlet being a group blog is an issue for personal brand. Indeed the lack of a clear personal brand was one of the issues picked up when myself and Hanna Lewin spoke at HLG Conference in Salford about the group blog experience.  It is notable also that people really struggle with the blog name (and that the “what’s an informaticist” page gets lots of hits!).  I did have an experimental blog for some KM learning which could be revived.  A long with my own name I have been happy enough to use my own picture (mucked about with of late as result of trying out an online tool). I can understand why some might shy away from using their picture though.

I think the professional is personal and my communication online reflects this.  I think about what I do / professional issues a fair bit and this comes out.  Twitter encourages the blurring of the line but I share considerably less there than I might with colleagues in the office.  I also like to show off pictures of pies.

I think my online brand is fairly consistent with offline which is a good thing to my way of thinking.  I probably should have a personal blog rather than the confusion of this group blog but I like it here.



Medicine 2.0: definition

In Evidence-Based Librarianship,Web 2.0 & all that on August 8, 2008 by Danielle Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The UBC Academic search Blog has also blogged on an open source paper by Hughes et al in JMIR about web 2.0 and more specifically, ‘Medicine 2.0’.

Have you heard of ‘Medicine 2.0’? I have not. Apparently, there are between 100,000 and 400,000 mentions of it on the internet (depending which search engine is used). Health 2.0 was found to be more popular, with 0.5 to 1.7 million mentions of it on the internet.

Because even the term ‘web 2.0’ is quite new–apparently, it has only been around since 2004, we can expect a myriad of definitions for it, as well as [topic name] 2.0, this paper suggests. My belief is that slapping ‘2.0’ after a topic is a way of making it sound shiny and new.

They come up with the following definition for Medicine 2.0:

Medicine 2.0 is the use of a specific set of Web tools (blogs, Podcasts, tagging, search, wikis, etc) by actors in health care including doctors, patients, and scientists, using principles of open source and generation of content by users, and the power of networks in order to personalize health care, collaborate, and promote health education.

We are therefore stakeholders in not only Web 2.0, but also Medicine 2.0! But what does this mean? Well, for starters, they point out that more research is needed in Medicine 2.0 (such as studies on blogs or wikis). Best practice models can grow out of this. Hint: we need to be conducting said research.

What we need is more authority control over what we call whatever is happening in medical or healthcare information online. Medicine 2.0, Health 2.0, or MedInfo 2.0? Some folks are even changing the number, I suppose to suggest that whatever they have is more advanced than the rubbish we’ve got. How shall slick marketers be dealt with? And how is Medicine 2.0 to be differentiated from ‘eHealth’ and similar terms? Right now, the definition seems to depend on one’s personal opinion or preferences!

To conclude, McLean et al’s paper, in the MJA is a nice, accessible (and open-source) one that tries to summarise medicine’s presence on the web, and provides a useful glossary at the bottom.


Increased discussion and interaction amo …

In Blogging on Blogging on July 31, 2008 by Danielle Tagged: , , , , , , , , , ,

Increased professional discussion and interaction amongst healthcare professionals is a very positive result of the availability of blogging software and social networking venues. Naturally, there are possible ‘adverse effects’ of communication that is detailed, public and in which patients might be discussed, or products pushed. A recently-published paper in the Journal of General Internal Medicine by Lagu et al finds that violations of patient privacy and product endorsements are two undesirable byproducts of medical blogging.

Lagu et al state that most established medical bloggers make an effort to veil their own identity and protect patient privacy. It is rare for a blogger to violate a patient’s privacy outright–the more common ‘grey area’ is a blogger giving some details about where they work and what they do, so that they are identifiable to colleagues and the public. This could endanger a patient’s privacy (my own thinking is that someone could piece together some details of who the patient is or what condition(s) a known person has, especially if they know a bit about the healthcare professional and/or the patient).
Their outlook is positive and they believe that more established bloggers are setting a good path for newbies to follow.

“A voluntary movement by medical blog authors toward self-regulation regarding patient privacy, transparency, anonymity, and patient respect is taking shape.”

I wonder if, in the near future, we can expect the BMA (or the CMA, over the ocean) to set out guidelines on medical blogging? And what about the many other colleges and associations for nurses and specialists?

Lagu et al found that 31% of the 271 healthcare blogs identified contained 1 or more product endorsement. These are not adverts of the variety that move and flash (and can be easily removed by my browser)–no, they are often written into the blog. Any sensible blogger will realise that making paid promotions (which many of these are) completely compromises their credibilty, and in this case, the blogger’s professional reputation. The researchers could not actually tell if the endorsements were paid, or if they were just things the blogger found effective, as most blogs did not declare competing interests (and they should!).