Title |
#FOAMems: Engaging paramedics with free, online open-access education
|
---|---|
Published in |
Journal of Education and Health Promotion, January 2018
|
DOI | 10.4103/jehp.jehp_84_17 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Mason, Paige Mason, Alan M Batt, Mason, Paige, Batt, Alan M |
Abstract |
Twitter®use among paramedics and other prehospital care clinicians is on the rise and is increasingly being used as a platform for continuing education and international collaboration. In 2014, the hashtag #FOAMems was registered. It is used for the sharing of emergency medical services, paramedicine, and prehospital care-related content. It is a component of the 'free open-access meducation' (FOAM) movement. The aim of this study was to characterize and evaluate the content of #FOAMems tweets since registration. An analytical report for #FOAMems was generated on symplur.com from February 4, 2014, to April 30, 2017. A transcript of all #FOAMems tweets for a randomly selected 1 month period (October 2015) was generated, and quantitative content analysis was performed by two reviewers. Tweets were categorized according to source (original tweet/retweet) and whether referenced. The top 92 tweeters were analyzed for professional identity. During the study period, there were over 99,000 tweets containing #FOAMems, by over 9,200 participants. These resulted in almost 144 million impressions. Of the top 92 tweeters, 50 were paramedics (54%). Tweets were mainly related to cardiac (23%), leadership (19%), and trauma (14%). The 1-month period resulted in 649 original tweets, with 2110 retweets; 1070 of these were referenced. Paramedics are engaging with both clinical and nonclinical content on Twitter®using #FOAMems. Social media resources are widely shared, which is in line with the FOAM movement's philosophy. However, opportunities exist for paramedics to share further diverse resources supported by referenced material. |
Twitter Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Canada | 4 | 22% |
Australia | 2 | 11% |
United Kingdom | 2 | 11% |
Denmark | 1 | 6% |
United States | 1 | 6% |
India | 1 | 6% |
Unknown | 7 | 39% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 13 | 72% |
Scientists | 3 | 17% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 15% |
Student > Bachelor | 3 | 12% |
Student > Master | 3 | 12% |
Lecturer | 2 | 8% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 4% |
Other | 4 | 15% |
Unknown | 9 | 35% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 31% |
Psychology | 3 | 12% |
Social Sciences | 2 | 8% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 8% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 4% |
Other | 1 | 4% |
Unknown | 9 | 35% |