Chat with us, powered by LiveChat ? APA format 1) Minimum ?6 full pages (No word count p - Study Help
  

?

APA format

1) Minimum ?6 full pages (No word count per page)- Follow the 3 x 3 rule: minimum three paragraphs per page

2)?******APA norms

?????????All paragraphs must be narrative and cited in the text- each paragraph

?????????Bulleted responses are not accepted

?????????Don’t write in the first person?

?????????Don’t copy and paste the questions.

?????????Answer the question objectively, do not make introductions to your answers, answer it when you start the paragraph

3)****************************** It will be verified by Turnitin (Identify the percentage of exact match of writing with any other resource on the internet and academic sources, including universities and data banks)?

********************************It will be verified by SafeAssign (Identify the percentage of similarity of writing with any other resource on the internet and academic sources, including universities and data banks)

4) Minimum 6 references (APA format) per part not older than 5 years ?(Journals, books) (No websites)

All references must be consistent with the topic-purpose-focus of the parts. Different references are not allowed.

5) Identify your answer with the numbers, according to the question. Start your answer on the same line, not the next

Example:

Q 1. Nursing is XXXXX

Q 2. Health is XXXX

__________________________________________________________________________________

Please, read the attached article and analyze it based on its merit by answering the following questions:?

1- Has the author formulated an appropriate research question based on the problem/issue? (1 page)

a. Why’

2- Is the research question clearly defined in terms of its scope and relevance? (1 page)

a. Why?

3- What is the author?s orientation towards the research problem/issue? (1 page)

a.Is it critical analysis or interpretation based??

4- How does this article contribute to your understanding of possible research modalities and methods (yes)? (1 page)

a. Explain why?

The student’s current research is: “Evaluation of therapeutic adherence in patients with diabetes type 2 Mellitus”

5- What are the strengths, limitations of the study? (1 page)

6- Which Essentials do you see represented in this article and why? (1 page)

Check: https://www.aacnnursing.org/portals/42/publications/baccessentials08.pdf

a. ?Scholarship?for Evidence?Based?Practice?

b. ?Information Management and?Application of Patient? Care?Technology??

Brief Communication

Translating evidence to practice in the health professions:

a randomized trial of Twitter vs Facebook

Jacqueline Tunnecliff,1 John Weiner,2 James E Gaida,3 Jennifer L Keating,1

Prue Morgan,1 Dragan Ilic,2 Lyn Clearihan,4 David Davies,5 Sivalal Sadasivan,6

Patitapaban Mohanty,
7

Shankar Ganesh,
7

John Reynolds,
2

and Stephen Maloney
1

1Department of Physiotherapy, Monash University, Frankston, Australia, 2Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine,

Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, 3Discipline of Physiotherapy and University of Canberra Research Institute for Sport

and Exercise (UCRISE), University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia, 4School of Primary Health, Monash University, Melbourne,

Australia, 5Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom, 6JC School of Medicine & Health Scien-

ces, Monash University Malaysia and 7Swami Vivekanand National Institute of Rehabilitation Training and Research, Odisha,

India

Correspondence to Associate Professor Stephen Maloney, Department of Physiotherapy, Monash University, PO Box

527, Frankston, 3199, Victoria, Australia; [email?protected]

Received 7 October 2015; Revised 21 April 2016; Accepted 30 April 2016

ABSTRACT

Objective: Our objective was to compare the change in research informed knowledge of health professionals

and their intended practice following exposure to research information delivered by either Twitter or Facebook.

Methods: This open label comparative design study randomized health professional clinicians to receive

?practice points? on tendinopathy management via Twitter or Facebook. Evaluated outcomes included knowl-

edge change and self-reported changes to clinical practice.

Results: Four hundred and ninety-four participants were randomized to 1 of 2 groups and 317 responders ana-

lyzed. Both groups demonstrated improvements in knowledge and reported changes to clinical practice. There

was no statistical difference between groups for the outcomes of knowledge change (P? .728), changes to clini-
cal practice (P? .11) or the increased use of research information (P? .89). Practice points were shared more by
the Twitter group (P < .001); attrition was lower in the Facebook group (P < .001).

Conclusion: Research information delivered by either Twitter or Facebook can improve clinician knowledge and

promote behavior change. No differences in these outcomes were observed between the Twitter and Facebook

groups. Brief social media posts are as effective as longer posts for improving knowledge and promoting

behavior change. Twitter may be more useful in publicizing information and Facebook for encouraging course

completion.

Key words: social media, evidence-based practice, communication, education, professional, computer-assisted instruction

INTRODUCTION

A significant gap remains between research generated healthcare

knowledge and clinical practice.1?3 Social media can rapidly link

researchers and clinicians from diverse geographical regions,

disciplines, and areas of practice; making it an ideal medium for

knowledge exchange and education. Approximately 25% of

health professionals currently use social media for obtaining

research information.4

Social media has been defined as a ?collection of web-based

technologies that share a user-focused approach to design and func-

tionality, where users can actively participate in content creation

VC The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association. All rights reserved.

For Permissions, please email: [email?protected]

403

Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 24(2), 2017, 403?408

doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocw085

Advance Access Publication Date: 29 June 2016

Brief Communication

and editing through open collaboration between members of com-

munities of practice.?5 The use of social media in education may

lead to positive learning experiences,5,6 increases in knowledge and

skills,7?10 and changes to the clinical practices of health professio-

nals.10,11 However, there is a need for studies to evaluate the relative

effectiveness of different social media based applications.12

Two of the largest social media applications are Facebook (1.49

billion monthly active users) and Twitter (316 million monthly

active users).13,14 Both sites promote user interaction and allow

posting of text, videos, and weblinks; however, Twitter limits posts

to 140 characters. Neither site charges access costs. The popularity

and features of these sites indicate their potential application in

communicating research information and, therefore, were chosen

for investigation in this study.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this study was to determine if research

information delivered by Twitter or Facebook would result in

greater changes in research informed knowledge and practices of

health professionals. The secondary aim was to compare participant

behavior and engagement with the two mediums.

METHODS

Design
An open label randomized comparative design was used, with a

mixed methods approach to data collection and analysis. The Mon-

ash University Human Research Ethics committee (CF 14/1372 ?

2014000640) approved the study.

Participants
Health professional clinicians of any discipline (e.g., medicine, phys-

iotherapy, podiatry), geographical location, or level of expertise

(including undergraduate students), were eligible to participate.

Recruitment occurred via an email invitation distributed to clinical

affiliates and departments of Monash University, Faculty of Medi-

cine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Australia; Monash University

Malaysia; Swami Vivekanand National Institute of Rehabilitation

Training and Research, India; and the University of Southern Cali-

fornia. Professional associations representing professions registered

with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency15 were

also invited to distribute the invitation to participate via email or

their own social media sites.

Intervention
A short course, consisting of the same 8 ?practice points? or key

educational messages of 140 characters or less, on topics related to

tendon management were delivered to each group via posts on Twit-

ter16 and Facebook17 web pages. Each practice point was linked to

supplementary information in the form of peer-reviewed journal

articles or podcasts by clinical experts. The course was designed by

educational, clinical, and research experts, and was identical except

that the Facebook posts contained the practice point plus an addi-

tional 2?6 short written statements (1?2 sentences) that highlighted

key concepts from the supplementary information. The practice

points were delivered evenly over a 2 week period, to both groups at

the same time points. The pages were not restricted access.

Procedure
Clinicians consented to participate by providing contact details

through an online survey. Those who provided a valid email address

were enrolled. Participants were stratified by role (student, clinician,

or other) and randomized to receive the practice points via Twitter

or Facebook. Participants received video and written instructions on

obtaining a social media account and accessing the practice points

from their allocated site. The instructions also encouraged interac-

tion on the allocated site. Participants were sent three reminder

emails at each data collection point to minimize attrition. The study

was conducted between August and October 2014.

Outcomes
Data was obtained via an anonymous online survey completed 1

week before (baseline assessment) and after (post-intervention

assessment) the short course. A password was used to match pre-

and post-course data. Demographic details, information on tendon

management experience, and current use of social media were

obtained.

Outcomes were determined based on the Kirkpatrick hierarchi-

cal levels of evaluation 1?3.18 Participation and engagement data

was also collected. A data collection summary can be found in

Appendix 1.

Kirkpatrick Level 1: Participant Reactions
The Social Media Use and Perception Instrument (SMUPI), a ques-

tionnaire of 10 items with high internal consistency,19 measured

attitudes towards using social media in continuing professional

development.

Kirkpatrick Level 2: Knowledge
Sixteen multiple choice questions assessed knowledge (A?E

responses) (Appendix 2). One question correlated with each

?practice point? and one correlated with information from each

piece of supplementary information. The questions in both assess-

ments were identical, but question and response order were random-

ized to minimize score improvements based on pattern recognition.

Participants were not given assessment answers until the conclusion

of the study. Self-rated measures of tendon management confidence

and knowledge were also obtained.

Kirkpatrick Level 3: Behavior Change
Participants were asked ?has the education you have received via

social media during this trial changed the way you practice, or

intend to practice, with musculoskeletal clients?? and ?has the edu-

cation you have received during this trial increased your use of

research evidence within your clinical practice??

Participation was evaluated via the number of participants who

connected with the social media pages and completed the assess-

ments. Data on interaction was obtained through participant self-

report and from the number of times posts were approved of

(?liked? or ?favorite?), shared or commented on.

Analysis
Mixed linear models were used to analyze the repeated measure-

ments (pre- and post-exposure to the intervention) on the partici-

pants. The restricted maximum likelihood method (REML), as

implemented in the GenStat statistical package,20 was used to fit the

models, calculate predicted means and test, using F-tests, the main

effects of group (Twitter vs Facebook) and time (pre vs post) as well

404 Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2017, Vol. 24, No. 2

as their 2-way interaction. Pairwise least significant difference tests of

the group-by-time means were based on these analyses and conducted

at the 5% significance level. Diagnostic plots of residuals were

checked for assumptions on which these methods are based. Analyses

of the 5-point Likert scale responses also used the restricted maximum

likelihood method as is customary with large datasets.21 The analyses

of binary response outcomes, measured post intervention, were based

on logistic regression models, also fitted using GenStat. Discrete count

data from Twitter and Facebook sites were analyzed using a variance-

stabilizing transformation in an analysis of variance.

RESULTS

Five hundred clinicians consented to participate. Five were excluded

due to an invalid email address, and one participant asked to be

removed. Four hundred and ninety-four participants were randomized.

The attrition rates from randomization to baseline assessment were

48.2% for the Twitter group and 41.7% for the Facebook group; the

difference was not significant [v2 (1, n?494)?2.09, P? .148]. Attri-
tion from baseline assessment to post intervention assessment was

32.8% for the Twitter group and 8.3% for the Facebook group; this

difference was significant [v2 (1, n?494)?17.37, P < .001]. Three
hundred and seventeen responses were analyzed (140 Twitter, 177

Facebook). There were 99 baseline assessments, 45 post intervention

assessments, and 173 matched baseline and post intervention assess-

ments. A consort flow-chart is available in Figure 1.

Demographics
Demographic data and data on tendon management experience and

social media use was obtained from the baseline assessment and is

presented in Table 1.

Kirkpatrick levels 1, 2 and 3
Following the intervention, (the short course consisting of practice

points) there were statistically significant increases in SMUPI score,

self-rated confidence, self-rated knowledge and multiple choice

assessment score; but no statistically significant differences between

the groups in their changes over time. Participants in both groups

reported a change in practice/intended practice and increased use of

research in practice/intended practice as a result of the intervention

but there was no statistically significant difference between the

groups. This is shown in Table 2.

The Twitter page developed 428 ?followers? and the Facebook

page received 155 ?likes.? An estimated 10.0% (8/80) of the Twitter

group and 7.8% (9/115) of the Facebook group reported interacting

online. The difference between groups was not significant [v2 (1,
n?195)?0.28, P?0.597)]. An estimated 42.6% (20/47) of the Twit-
ter group and 34.8% (24/69) of the Facebook group reported lack of

time as a reason for lack of interaction on the social media sites.

Statistically significant differences were found between groups

for number of times information was shared (mean shares per post

Twitter 10.40, Facebook 0.20, SED 3.030, P < .001) and approved

of (?liked?/?favourite?) (mean Twitter 14.00, Facebook 8.00, SED

1.414, P? .005).

DISCUSSION

This study has demonstrated that research information delivered by

either Twitter or Facebook can improve clinician knowledge and

Expressed interest in par?cipa?ng (n=500)

Excluded (n=6)
n=1 complaint about process
n=5 no email address provided

Randomized (n=494)

Allocated to Facebook (n=247)Allocated to Twi?er (n=247)

Comple?on of baseline Assessment
(n=128)

Withdrew (n=1)
Reason unknown

Comple?on of baseline Assessment
(n=144)

Comple?on of post interven?on
assessment (n=86)

Comple?on of post interven?on
assessment (n=132)

Figure 1. Consort flow chart showing attrition of study participants.

Table 1. Participant demographics and participant characteristics

Twitter Facebook

N (%)a N (%)a

Baseline demographic data sets 128 144

Area of practice

Physiotherapy/physical therapy 95 (74.2) 98 (68.1)

Medicine 18 (14.1) 19 (13.2)

Osteopathy 2 (1.6) 3 (2.1)

Podiatry 7 (5.5) 11 (7.6)

Other 4 (3.1) 11 (7.6)

Not stated 2 (1.6) 2 (1.4)

Role

Undergraduate Student 33 (25.8) 36 (25.0)

Postgraduate Clinical Trainee 9 (7.0) 13 (9.0)

Clinician 78 (60.9) 78 (54.2)

Other 8 (6.3) 17 (11.8)

Not stated 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)

Age

Under 18 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)

18?24 28 (21.9) 39 (27.1)

25?34 59 (46.1) 64 (44.4)

35?44 31 (24.2) 28 (19.4)

45?54 8 (6.3) 8 (5.6)

55?64 2 (1.6) 4 (2.8)

65? 0 (0.0) 1 (0.7)
Sex

Male 79 (61.7) 71 (49.3)

Female 47 (36.7) 71 (49.3)

Not stated 2 (1.6) 2 (1.4)

Country

Australia 48 (37.5) 59 (41.0)

India 14 (10.9) 14 (9.7)

Malaysia 5 (3.9) 6 (4.2)

UK 29 (22.7) 23 (16.0)

USA 12 (9.4) 17 (11.8)

Other 19 (14.8) 24 (16.7)

Not stated 1 (0.8) 1 (0.7)

Tendon management experience

Provide health care to clients with

tendon disorders once a week or more

61 (47.7) 62 (43.1)

Social Media experience

Use Twitter 75 (58.6) 66 (45.8)

Use Facebook 106 (82.8) 130 (90.3)

aPercent of group (Twitter or Facebook) that provided baseline data.

Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2017, Vol. 24, No. 2 405

promote behavior change. No statistical differences in these out-

comes were observed between the Facebook and Twitter groups.

This research is consistent with previous literature that indicates

that web based or social media programs are useful as learning

tools,5,7,8,10,11 and can improve clinician knowledge and promote

behavior change.10

This study has also found that the provision of extra informa-

tion, beyond a 140 character message, did not impact on knowledge

or behavior change. Short messages may be beneficial to busy

healthcare workers as lack of time is often cited as a barrier to evi-

dence based practice.1 However, trustworthiness of information

gathered via social media is a key concern of clinicians.4 Our data

indicates that brief messages, when obtained from a reputable

source and linked to full sources of information may be acceptable

to clinicians.

There were two interesting differences between the groups.

There was greater overall attrition from the Twitter group. Site

familiarity may be a factor, as more health professionals use Face-

book than Twitter.4 In this study, over 80% of clinicians in each

group use Facebook; <60% in each group use Twitter. The prefer-

ence of clinicians to use Facebook over other social media sites for

obtaining research information may also be a factor.4 Therefore, the

use of Facebook may have encouraged online course completion.

The Twitter page developed a far greater following than the

Table 2. Kirkpatrick level 1?3 outcomes

Baseline measures

Predicted Mean (n)

Post-Intervention measures

Predicted Mean (n)

Difference (SED)b P-value

Kirkpatrick level 1 outcomes

SMUPIa

Twitter 40.34 (126) 41.85 (86) 1.51 (0.66) .024

Facebook 39.53 (143) 40.86 (127) 1.33 (0.58) .022

Difference (SED)b ?0.81 (0.82) ?0.99 (0.91)
P-value .326 .277 .841d

Kirkpatrick level 2 outcomes

Self-rated confidence in tendon managementc

Twitter 3.380 (128) 3.784 (86) 0.404 (0.083) <.001

Facebook 3.216 (143) 3.644 (131) 0.428 (0.072) <.001

Difference (SED)b ?0.164 (0.106) ?0.141 (0.116)
P-value .124 .227 .830d

Tendon management self-rated knowledgec

Twitter 3.181 (127) 3.727 (86) 0.546 (0.082) <.001

Facebook 3.027 (143) 3.570 (131) 0.543 (0.071) <.001

Difference (SED)b ?0.154 (0.102) ?0.157 (0.112)
P-value .135 .163 .975d

Multiple choice assessment total score (max score 16)

Twitter 7.649 (123) 10.308 (80) 2.659 (0.381) <.001

Facebook 6.599 (136) 9.435 (118) 2.835 (0.331) <.001

Difference (SED)b ?1.050 (0.469) ?0.874 (0.521)
P-value .026 .095 .728d

Assessment score for questions that addressed the practice points (max score 8)

Twitter 4.155 (123) 5.523 (80) 1.368 (0.233) <.001

Facebook 3.789 (136) 5.431 (118) 1.642 (0.203) <.001

Difference (SED)b ?0.366 (0.259) ?0.093 (0.293)
P-value .159 .752 .378d

Assessment score for questions addressing the supplementary information (max score 8)

Twitter 3.485 (123) 4.819 (80) 1.333 (0.211) <.001

Facebook 2.848 (136) 4.025 (118) 1.177 (0.184) <.001

Difference (SED)b ?0.637 (0.255) ?0.793 (0.211)
P-value .013* .006* .578d

Number reporting change (n) % of group (95% CI) P (between group

differences)

Kirkpatrick level 3 outcomes

Reported change in practice due to intervention

Twitter 59 (77) 77 (67-86) .11

Facebook 77 (117) 66 (57-74)

Reported increased use of research in practice

Twitter 55 (78) 71 (60-81) .89

Facebook 80 (115) 70 (61-78)

aTotal of ten items, each measured on a 5 point Likert scale, whereby higher score?more favorable attitude.
bSED?Standard Error of the Difference.
cMeasured on a 5 point Likert scale 1?very poor, 5?very good.
dP-value is for the F-test of a two-way interaction.

*Statistically significant difference between groups.

406 Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2017, Vol. 24, No. 2

Facebook page, and more participants in the Twitter group shared

the received information within their own social networks. Twitter

is particularly useful in publicizing information, and it appears this

also applies to research information.

Social media promotes online social interactions, which may

enhance learning22 and promote change through social influence.23

Interaction in this study was encouraged in the course instructions, and

a tendon expert was available to answer questions. However, 10% or

less of the participants in each group reported interacting online. Over

30% of participants in each group cited lack of time as a key barrier to

interacting. Approximately 60% of clinicians are evidence

?pragmatists? ? those to whom validity of evidence is secondary to the

daily demands of practice.2 Therefore, the interaction in this study may

reflect everyday professional use of social media for accessing research

evidence. Concerns about professional image may also influence online

interactions.4 Herein lies the paradox of social media based learning

communities; the openness and diversity which can enrich learning

may also negatively impact upon the socio?emotional aspects of group

formation which may be beneficial for collaborative learning.24

While significant improvements in knowledge occurred, the

improvements were small (an increase in total assessment score of

<3). A lack of time to read or listen to supplementary information

may have influenced this result. The practice points may also have

been lost among the large volumes of information that can appear

on social media accounts, or may have been filtered out by the social

media sites themselves.

There are several limitations to this study. Baseline measures

were collected shortly after randomization had occurred, potentially

resulting in chance bias. However, participant assessments were

anonymous, therefore randomization after completion of baseline

measures was not possible. There was no control group to assess the

impact of a learning effect from the assessment or to see if the course

was equally effective if delivered via email or text message. How-

ever, this study aimed to compare social media modalities and the

benefits and limitations of each. Participants from the Twitter group

had a statistically significant higher baseline assessment score for

knowledge related to the supplementary information. There are a

number of health professional information sharing sites on Twitter,

and participants allocated to Twitter may be more inclined to partic-

ipate if they had previous exposure to these sites. An error resulted

in 5 participants from the Twitter group obtaining the course infor-

mation for both Twitter and Facebook, however due to the small

number of participants affected, this is unlikely to have impacted the

results. Both Facebook and Twitter sites were publically available,

and participants were not asked to keep group allocation or infor-

mation confidential, meaning the groups may not have been mutu-

ally exclusive. However, participants were not informed of the

alternate group, and the diversity of participants limits the potential

impact of this confounding factor. The sites were open access; there-

fore people other than study participants may have interacted on the

sites. The same assessment was used before and after the interven-

tion however, question and answer order were randomized to limit

any potential learning effects. The high attrition rates may have

resulted in attrition bias,25 however, given that online courses often

have dropout rates of ?50%26,27 the attrition level is not abnormal
for this type of education.

CONCLUSION

Evidence based ?practice points? on tendinopathy management can

increase clinician knowledge and influence changes in practice,

whether delivered by Facebook or Twitter. No differences in these

outcomes were observed between the Twitter and Facebook groups.

Messages of 140 characters or less are as effective as longer posts in

conveying research information.

Future research directions may include investigating social media

interaction and the subsequent impact on learning and behavior

change, and how perceived e-professionalism influences clinicians?

willingness to participate in social media based professional educa-

tion. Social media may provide a low cost method of widespread

distribution of information and an economic analysis of using social

media to distribute research information would complement existing

literature.

CONTRIBUTORS

The authors listed contributed to the research design, data collec-

tion, analysis, write-up, and critical review of the final manuscript.

FUNDING

This work was supported by the Monash University Strategic Project Grant

Scheme 2014, Grant Number: SPG-L 007

COMPETING INTERESTS

None.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors of this article have no formal relationship with either Twitter or

Facebook.

REFERENCES

1. Glasziou P, Haynes B. The paths from research to improved health out-

comes. Evid Based Nurs 2005;8(2):36?38.

2. Scott A, Docking S, Vicenzino B, et al. Sports and exercise-related tendino-

pathies: a review of selected topical issues by participants of the second

International Scientific Tendinopathy Symposium (ISTS) Vancouver

2012. Br J Sports Med 2013;47(9):536?544.

3. Thomas A, Menon A, Boruff J, et al. Applications of social constructivist

learning theories in knowledge translation for healthcare professionals: a

scoping review. Implement Sci 2014;9:54.

4. Tunnecliff J, Ilic D, Morgan P, et al. The acceptability among health re-

searchers and clinicians of social media to translate research evidence to

clinical practice: mixed-methods survey and interview study. J Med Inter-

net Res 2015;17(5):e119.

5. Cheston CC, Flickinger TE, Chisolm MS. Social media use in medical edu-

cation: a systematic review. Acad Med 2013;88(6):893?901.

6. Cartledge P, Miller M, Phillips B. The use of social-networking sites in

medical education. Med Teach 2013;35(10):847?857.

7. Raupach T, Muenscher C, Anders S, et al. Web-based collaborative

training of clincial reasoning: a randomized trail. Med Teach

2009;31:431?437.

8. Carvas M, Imamura M, Hsing W, et al. An innovative method of global

clinical reserach training using collaborative learning with Web 2.0 tools.

Med Teach 2010;32(3):270.

9. Junco R, Heiberger G, Loken E. The effect of Twitter on college student

engagement and grades. J Comput Assisted Learn 2011;27:119?132.

10. Maloney S, Tunnecliff J, Clearihan L, et al. Translating evidence to prac-

tice via social media: a mixed methods study. J Med Internet Res

2015;17(10):e242.

Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2017, Vol. 24, No. 2 407

11. McGowan BS, Wasko M, Vartabedian BS, et al. Understanding the factors

that influence the adoption and meaningful use of social media. J Med In-

ternet Res 2012;14:117.

12. Moorhead SA, Hazlett DE, Harrison L, et al. A new dimension of

health care: systematic review of the uses, benefits, and limitations of

social media for health communication. J Med Internet Res

2013;15(4):e85.

13. Statistica. Facebook: Monthly Active Users [Webpage] 2015. http://www.

statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-

users-worldwide/. Accessed December 16, 2015.

error: Content is protected !!