4.7 Article

The ART of social networking: how SART member clinics are connecting with patients online

期刊

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
卷 97, 期 1, 页码 88-94

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.10.001

关键词

In vitro fertilization; social networks; Twitter; Facebook; assisted reproductive technology; infertility; internet; blogs

资金

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [K12 HD063086] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To study and describe the use of social networking websites among Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) member clinics. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: University-based practice. Patient(s): Not applicable. Intervention(s): Not applicable. Main Outcome Measure(s): Prevalence of social networking websites among SART member clinics and evaluation of content, volume, and location (i.e., mandated state, region) using multivariate regression analysis. Result(s): A total of 384 SART-registered clinics and 1,382 social networking posts were evaluated. Of the clinics, 96% had a website and 30% linked to a social networking website. The majority of clinics (89%) with social networking websites were affiliated with nonacademic centers. Social networking posts mostly provided information (31%) and/or advertising (28%), and the remaining offered support (19%) or were irrelevant (17%) to the target audience. Only 5% of posts involved patients requesting information. Clinic volume correlated with the presence of a clinic website and a social networking website. Conclusion(s): Almost all SART member clinics have a website. Nearly one-third of these clinics host a social networking website such as Facebook, Twitter, and/or a blog. Large-volume clinics commonly host social networking websites. These sites provide new ways to communicate with patients, but clinics should maintain policies on the incorporation of social networks into practice. (Fertil Steril (R) 2012;97:88-94. (C) 2012 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据