Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Publications
  3. Publishing partners
  4. Facet Publishing
  5. Content Listing

Refine listing

Refine listing

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

5856 results in Facet Publishing

Page 224 of 293

  • 8 - Some ethical and legal considerations in the use of Web 2.0

  • from Part 2 - Web 2.0 and the implications for health information
    • By Peter Morgan, Head of Medical and Science Libraries, based in the Medical Library at Cambridge University Library
  • Edited by Paula Younger, Peter Morgan
  • Book:
    Using Web 2.0 for Health Information
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    23 April 2011, pp 85-92

  • Summary

    Introduction

    Like all professionals, librarians and other information specialists are subject both to ethical standards that guide their professional conduct, and to legal regulation. It would be entirely wrong to suppose that the growth of the internet is solely responsible for determining the nature of the obligations and constraints to which professional behaviour is nowadays expected to conform. Many of these principles have been with us for far longer, establishing lasting social values and responsibilities that are fundamentally just as relevant now as they ever were. Issues such as copyright, defamation and negligence – and the need to be aware of them – were part of the fabric of professional life long before the internet arrived.

    The new society of the internet

    It is also true, however, that the internet's development has made a significant difference in at least two respects. First, it has accelerated the pace of technologydriven change, and in so doing has forced us to reconsider whether the existing ethical and legal framework is still adequate. When Charlie Chaplin (commenting on moral issues created by the emergence of atomic weapons) wrote ‘Man is an animal with primary instincts of survival. Consequently, his ingenuity has developed first and his soul afterwards. Thus the progress of science is far ahead of man's ethical behaviour’ (Chaplin, 1964, 507), he was drawing attention to the same relentless process of technological change and human response. Present-day examples can be seen in the public debates surrounding in vitro fertilization, genetic modification and stem-cell research. So it is inevitable that the all-pervasive growth of the internet's influence should be followed by a reassessment and redefinition of the standards we need to adopt in order to exploit it responsibly, and we need to be aware of how the results affect our professional activities.

    This leads to the second difference, and one that perhaps uniquely defines the internet's character. Kevan and McGrath (2001) describe it thus: ‘The relationship between law and the internet is based upon a simple conflict: laws exist to regulate society; [but] the internet has created a new society founded upon the principle that it should be wholly unregulated.’ The consequences of that ‘simple conflict’ are in fact anything but simple, and contain further complexities that are relevant to us.

  • 4 - Supporting learners via Web 2.0

  • from Part 2 - Web 2.0 and the implications for health information
    • By Laura Cobus-Kuo, Health Sciences Librarian at Ithaca College since August 2010.
  • Edited by Paula Younger, Peter Morgan
  • Book:
    Using Web 2.0 for Health Information
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    23 April 2011, pp 53-66

  • Summary

    Introduction

    Public health professionals are responsible for using various forms of media (TV, radio, newspapers, research, the web) to communicate with the public. Use of newer Web 2.0 tools where content can be added, edited or revised, sometimes by many authors, arguably increases the risk of potentially biased or harmful health information. It therefore becomes the public health professional's responsibility to learn the skills needed to critically appraise web content that hasn't gone through the traditional peerreview process. It is important for health professionals and educators to become active participants and contributors to Web 2.0 systems and, moreover, to assist in developing a system and infrastructure that supports educators in successfully incorporating technology into the classroom. This chapter addresses these issues, in particular the use of blogs and wikis in healthcare education.

    Web 2.0 in higher education

    Higher education is in the midst of a major transformation as it tries to keep up with the impact that new technologies such as Web 2.0 are having upon it. Universities are only at the early stages of coming to terms with the changes technology is creating; however, the expectation from students is that technology will play a major role in their education (Finkelman and Kenner, 2009) – and they're ready for it (Collis and Moonen, 2008)! Institutions of higher education must ensure that educators are on the front line of this ever-changing landscape and have the skills to successfully incorporate information technology into the curriculum.

    In the health sciences there have been calls for a systematic revision of the education of healthcare professionals by embedding technology and information-seeking skills into the curriculum (Association of American Medical Colleges, 1998a; Association of American Medical Colleges, 1998b; Association of College and Research Libraries, 2000; Finkelman and Kenner, 2009; Institute of Medicine, 2003; Medical Library Association, 2007; National League for Nursing, 2008; Yasnoff et al., 2001). The health sciences have become an ‘information-processing enterprise’ (Shaw, 2010), reinforcing the need for health professionals to have proficient information technology and information gathering skills.

    At present, there is little in the literature systematically reviewing and assessing the use of Web 2.0 in the classroom (Luo, 2010; Skiba and Barton, 2009). At best, it is only ‘slowly’ being incorporated into health and medically related curricula (Kamel Boulos and Wheeler, 2007; Lemley and Burnham, 2009).

  • 14 - Web 3.0 and health librarians: what does the future hold?

  • from Part 4 - The future
    • By Allan Cho, Irving K. Barber Learning Centre (IKBLC) within the University of British Columbia Library, Dean Giustini, UBC Biomedical Branch Library located at the Vancouver General Hospital.
  • Edited by Paula Younger, Peter Morgan
  • Book:
    Using Web 2.0 for Health Information
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    23 April 2011, pp 141-152

  • Summary

    Introduction

    In a 2001 Scientific American article, Sir Tim Berners-Lee shares his vision for the world wide web which he believes will solve most of humankind's ‘most complex problems’ (Berners-Lee et al., 2001). In this chapter, we provide an update on the evolution of Web 3.0 and Berners-Lee's ideas for a Semantic Web – two separate terms that many believe are synonymous, while others dispute if they even exist. In addition, we reflect on what Web 3.0 means for health librarians and whether there are new roles for us in shaping its future.

    Web 3.0 is more than semantics

    A word of warning: both the Semantic Web and Web 3.0 lack clear definitions (see Glossary), yet these terms are widely and interchangeably used. For us, Web 3.0 refers to the third decade of the web and the Semantic Web is simply part of that; however, this interpretation is also disputed (Anderson and Rainie, 2010). The experts cannot agree on a name, a definition or whether Web 3.0 exists. What is important for librarians to remember is that Web 3.0 is not a whole new internet space but a group of trends that extends the web's functionality by:

  • • translating the web into a language that can be read and categorized by computers

  • • applying the technologies of the Semantic Web to improve how information is found

  • • creating a way to link to documents (‘to create linked data’) through artificial intelligence (AI) and machine-based reasoning

  • • integrating three-dimensional (3D), virtual and physical worlds into an immersive web experience.

    • Consider for a moment that the current web is evolving from Web 2.0 into a mobile and immersive medium (Lippincott, 2010). Part of the (r)evolution includes geolocation tools like Foursquare and virtual worlds like Second Life. But conceptually, the nextgeneration web or ‘web of data’ as articulated by Berners-Lee and others looks back to an earlier model of documentation by Paul Otlet in the early 20th century (Wright, 2009) and to bibliographic control by Melvil Dewey and Antonio Panizzi in the 19th century (Carpenter, 2002). For the cutting edge in organizing and linking important information, what's old seems new again.

    The Semantic Web in progress

    … semantics comes from the Greek to give signs, meaning, or to make significant. Semantics refers to aspects of meaning as expressed in language or systems of signs. (Giustini, 2007)

  • 11 - Using mashups in health information provision

  • from Part 3 - Web applications in health information provision: some practical examples
  • Edited by Paula Younger, Peter Morgan
  • Book:
    Using Web 2.0 for Health Information
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    23 April 2011, pp 115-120

  • Summary

    Introduction

    Scholarly publications are the end product of research work. In most cases the budgets of research groups rely on the productivity of group members: how many articles have been published and what are the Impact Factors of the journals? Thus, scholars strive for maximum visibility and impression in their publishing efforts.

    Terkko – Meilahti Campus Library (formerly: Terkko – National Library of Health Sciences, Finland), now part of the Helsinki University Library, has done pioneering work to highlight scholarly publications in medicine and health sciences at faculty, university and national level in Finland through innovative library services.

    The Library is using the latest technologies to disseminate information about research done in Finland. This case study presents some of the key services that the Library is offering so as to increase the global visibility and substance of Finnish medical research, and the Web 2.0 tools that are offered to library customers.

    Past

    Virtual Journal of Helsinki Medical Research (VJHMR) was a monthly multijournal compilation of the latest research at the University of Helsinki. It was published from 2000 until 2005. At that time, the publication provided a good overview of the scholarly publishing of the faculty. It had a major influence on the development of comparable services, for example Lund University, Sweden, published Lund Virtual Medical Journal from 2002 until 2007 (now Lund Medical Faculty Monthly).

    Technology

    A Web 2.0. tool, RSS technology, prepared the way for more rapid and automatic alerting of new articles. An RSS web feed is a data format used with frequently updated content, such as the bibliographical data on scientific articles published in scholarly journals. FeedNavigator, a free web-feed aggregator made in Terkko, started as a medical and health sciences entity, but today it is a genuine multi-disciplinary alerting service. FeedNavigator downloads some 6000 feeds from journals, news services and blogs and also offers sophisticated tools that enable end-users to customize the interface. In addition, FeedNavigator downloads 600+ feeds of the latest articles published by Finnish scholars from the PubMed database. These feeds are the backbone of the Scholar Chart mashup.

  • 5 - Supporting research

  • from Part 2 - Web 2.0 and the implications for health information
    • By Chris Mavergames, Web Operations Manager/Information Architect for The Cochrane Collaboration.
  • Edited by Paula Younger, Peter Morgan
  • Book:
    Using Web 2.0 for Health Information
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    23 April 2011, pp 67-72

  • Summary

    Introduction

    The online research environment has changed somewhat dramatically over the decade 2000–10, and researchers are now more connected than ever before both to their fellow researchers and to an unprecedented amount of information. It is now possible to ‘watch’ research as it happens – and in some cases to participate in its development – as one can follow the blogs of well known researchers, receive RSS updates from websites with a research focus, subscribe to podcasts, participate in the creation of wikis and in other collaborative environments, share citations and other bookmarks and join social networks around topic-specific research interests. All of these activities fall under the heading of the so-called Web 2.0, a suite of tools and technologies that has changed the way we interact with and use the web. In an early article on Web 2.0 and medicine, Giustini notes that ‘the more we use, share, and exchange information on the web in a continual loop of analysis and refinement, the more open and creative the platform becomes, hence, the more useful it is in our work’ (Giustini, 2006, 1283).

    As in the past, the central problem of conducting good research is to stay abreast of developments within a field of study. Healthcare and biomedicine are areas where new developments occur in rapid succession and leaps in discovery happen. Thus, the need to stay as networked as possible and to be ‘tuned in’ to new developments and discoveries is essential. Web 2.0 tools and technologies offer many options for accomplishing this goal. In addition, the pathway from primary research to knowledge translation to discovery by clinicians has been greatly expedited by these tools. As Hughes et al. note in their 2009 study of the junior physician's use of Web 2.0, ‘although credibility of information was the most cited concern, tools such as Wikipedia or Google are used 3 times more … than PubMed, the “official” best evidence tool introduced in medical school’ (Hughes et al., 2009, 651).

    Thus, one must choose wisely in the realm of Web 2.0 and use good information literacy skills in evaluating content, identifying its provenance and placing it in context.

  • 12 - Twitter in a hospital library

  • from Part 3 - Web applications in health information provision: some practical examples
    • By Hannah Prince, Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust in Harlow, Essex, UK.
  • Edited by Paula Younger, Peter Morgan
  • Book:
    Using Web 2.0 for Health Information
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    23 April 2011, pp 121-130

  • Summary

    Introduction

    As the manager of a hospital library, I started exploring Twitter as a way of communicating with my library users and potential users. Many libraries are using Twitter in lots of different ways; this chapter describes my experience and some of the decisions I have made.

    My library

    The library I work in is based in the Princess Alexandra Hospital, a small general hospital in Harlow, just outside London. We support staff and students in all the NHS organizations in Harlow and its surrounding small towns and villages: the hospital itself, local mental health units, clinics and GP surgeries. In total, we have around 5000 potential users but the majority do not make regular use of the library.

    Our wide geographical area and the increasing time pressures on NHS staff both contribute to an increased interest in providing library services electronically. However, the demographic and the spread of technology usage in the community are as wide as they could be: from medical students to managers, nurses to porters, and from those with the latest smartphone to those whose children help them search the web.

    Starting to use Twitter

    Setting up a Twitter account is technically very straightforward: you can create an account in a few minutes by registering a unique username at www.twitter.com. There are excellent guides available online to setting up your account (see the section on Further reading).

    When I started using Twitter for the library, there were a few points I considered:

  • • whether it was the right approach for what I wanted to achieve

  • • who the target audience should be

  • • what sort of information to share

  • • what other uses could be made of the format

  • • whether my employer would be comfortable with my use of this informal way of communicating.

    • In the light of experience, I would recommend that librarians who start to use Twitter should also consider:

  • • how best to access Twitter to suit your work pattern

  • • on what terms to engage with other people on Twitter

  • • how to resolve questions about what you should and shouldn't ‘tweet’ (post to Twitter)

  • • how to publicize a Twitter account among your target audience

  • • how to evaluate the impact of your work on Twitter.

  • 13 - Using Web 2.0 to facilitate staff development

  • from Part 3 - Web applications in health information provision: some practical examples
    • By Andrew Booth, Evidence Based Information Practice at the School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield., Anthea Sutton, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield., Andy Tattersall, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield.
  • Edited by Paula Younger, Peter Morgan
  • Book:
    Using Web 2.0 for Health Information
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    23 April 2011, pp 131-138

  • Summary

    Introduction

    Recent years have seen an increasing imperative for health librarians and information professionals to demonstrate that they possess, and use, mechanisms for ‘keeping current’ (Health Executive Advisory Group, 2004; Cunningham, 2010). As the speed of organizational and technical change becomes increasingly rapid, the requisite skill base covers an ever wider range of competencies (captured in the acronym COMPLIANT). Increasing user expectations, coupled with demands for quality, accountability and efficacy of practice, further emphasize the need to demonstrate strategies for periodic refreshment of skills and knowledge (Lacey and Booth, 2003). At the same time, conferences and workshops, traditional routes for acquiring such updates, are becoming less accessible as budgetary constraints and lack of time, combined with the need to provide continuity of front-line service, limit opportunities for staff to attend external training courses. E-learning, delivered via the web and facilitated by an increasing array of Web 2.0 technologies, offers the prospect of delivering staff development to library staff in the workplace (Ayiku et al., 2005).

    Requirements for staff development

    Our review of workplace-based e-learning identified five major themes: (1) peer communication, (2) flexibility, (3) support, (4) knowledge validation and (5) course presentation and design (Booth et al., 2009). The implications of these themes are as follows:

  • 1 E-learners working in isolation typically need to be able to interact with other learners and to receive social support for learning.

  • 2 Pressures of work make it more difficult to establish a routine for learning; deadlines for interaction or for assessment must be as flexible as possible.

  • 3 Workplace-based e-learners lack the reassurance that is provided by face-to-face interaction with teaching staff and require speedy and efficient support in response to questions.

  • 4 Mechanisms for checking knowledge are essential if e-learners are to verify their own learning and understanding throughout the learning module, not just at the end of the module.

  • 5 Course materials must be well presented and easy to navigate, particularly as workplace learners typically learn opportunistically, in bite-sized chunks, rather than enjoying the luxury of protected study time.

    • How Web 2.0 measures up

    It is immediately apparent that Web 2.0 technology has much to offer in meeting the five identified needs of workplace-based learners rehearsed above. The interactivity and ease of use of blog and wiki technologies facilitate communication with (Grassley and Bartoletti, 2009) and peer support from fellow learners (Moen et al., 2009).

Using Web 2.0 for Health Information
  • Edited by Paula Younger, Peter Morgan
  • Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    23 April 2011
  • Working together is a particular strength of information professionals, in all sectors. In the area of health information in particular, the potential for using the Internet for collaborative working is immense. Since it was first formally described in 2004, what is currently known as Web 2.0 has affected every library and information sector. Web 2.0 has tremendous potential to transform health information delivery still further. Although there have been many individual articles examining Web 2.0 applications and methods of working, and there are many individual examples of best practice, substantive works that synthesise this experience in one volume are rare. This new book is designed to meet this need, by drawing together international case studies and reflections on using Web 2.0. Topics covered include: RSS to social networking, information literacy to supporting clinical care, and more. The book blends practical insights, theory and reflective approaches to offer a cohesive overview of how Web 2.0 is already changing health and medical information work. Main strands include: Enhancing medical, nursing and health education; Information literacy in a health information environment; Supporting research; Supporting clinical care; Developing a service presence using Web 2.0; and, Using social networking to develop an outreach service. Although the focus of the book is health information, it would be relevant to anyone who would like to gain an insight into this innovative and cost-effective method of delivering and sharing information. It is equally relevant for those new to Web 2.0, or those with more experience wishing to gain further insight into its application.

  • Preface

    • By Paula Younger, Library Manager at Weston Area Health Trust in North Somerset, Peter Morgan, Head of Medical and Science Libraries, based in the Medical Library at Cambridge University Library
  • Edited by Paula Younger, Peter Morgan
  • Book:
    Using Web 2.0 for Health Information
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    23 April 2011, pp vii-x

  • Summary

    The internet and the web have effected a profound and permanent change in our world and the way we view it. In both our professional and our social lives the consequences are with us every day as we try to evaluate, assimilate and utilize each new stage in the technological evolutionary process. Web 2.0 is the name used for convenience as a label for the present stage, in which the emphasis is increasingly on interactive communication and semantic enrichment. (Exactly what is meant by ‘Web 2.0’, and indeed whether such a concept as ‘Web 2.0’ really exists, is discussed in more detail in Chapter 2 ‘Web 2.0 in Healthcare Information: an overview’.) Web 2.0 applications are just beginning to reveal their potential as a way of improving and maintaining education and healthcare information in a wide range of situations, for caregivers and consumers alike.

    Such is the pace of change, and such is the range of Web 2.0 tools and services on offer, that, while the journal literature provides an extensive coverage of recent developments, any attempt to produce a book surveying and summarizing the current state of affairs is inevitably destined to be overtaken by events. That certainty should not be seen as an argument against trying, though: the author or editor who waits for a more settled and stable state of affairs will in all probability be doomed to wait for ever. We share the belief of those others who have ventured into print in this area that there is a strong argument for providing the more considered, in-depth and reflective overview of web-based activities that a book makes possible; mapping key stages in the web's evolution, in the impact it has on our lives, and in the opportunities it enables us to grasp. Each book on the web is thus part of an incremental process of both advocacy and record. So, in formulating the case for this book we were – and remain – convinced that there is indeed a place for it and an audience that will benefit from reading it.

    Let us first be clear as to what this book is not. It is not a manual designed to provide definitive and exhaustive instructions in how to develop or use Web 2.0 tools. The message throughout is suggestive rather than prescriptive.

  • 6 - Crowdsourcing: the identification of content suitable for the developing world

  • from Part 2 - Web 2.0 and the implications for health information
  • Edited by Paula Younger, Peter Morgan
  • Book:
    Using Web 2.0 for Health Information
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    23 April 2011, pp 73-78

  • Summary

    Introduction: what is crowdsourcing?

    According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowdsourcing):

    Crowdsourcing is a neologistic compound of ‘crowd’ and ‘outsourcing’ for the act of outsourcing tasks, traditionally performed by an employee or contractor to a large group of people or community (a crowd), through an open call.

    In other words, you take a long-winded or complex task (that a computer typically cannot do well), break it down into smaller packets of work and get a group of people (the crowd) to each take a packet and work through it.

    The most prominent recent example of crowdsourcing was the search for the American adventurer Steve Fossett. He went missing whilst flying over the Nevada desert on 3 September 2007. He hadn't filed a flight plan, so his aeroplane could have been anywhere within a 4- to 5-hour flying radius of the private airstrip known as Flying-M Ranch. On 8 September the first of a series of new high-resolution imagery was made available via the Amazon Mechanical Turk beta website so that users could flag potential areas of interest to be searched (http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Steve_Fossett#Disappearance_and_search). The area was broken down into 300,000 squares, each measuring 278 feet square and covering the area where it was believed Fossett might have crashed. The principle in use was that users should look at individual squares for any signs of plane wreckage. By 11 September, up to 50,000 people had joined the effort and it was understood that each square had been viewed at least once. Unfortunately, there was no happy ending and on 29 October the site was closed, without any measurable success.

    Other examples of crowdsourcing include: Facebook, using this approach to help create different language versions of the site; The Guardian newspaper's investigation into the MPs’ expenses affair in the UK (users sifted through 700,000 expenses claim forms); and, arguably, Wikipedia itself.

    There have been some examples of using crowdsourcing in the medical world, but few have a high profile. Perhaps the most prominent is Medpedia (www.medpedia. com/), which is a medical version of Wikipedia. Amongst other prominent initiatives that include an element of crowdsourcing are PatientsLikeMe (www.patientslikeme.com/) and the People's Open Access Education Initiative (http://peoples-uni.org/).

  • 7 - Supporting patient needs: an overview of the potential role of Web 2.0 in patient and consumer information

  • from Part 2 - Web 2.0 and the implications for health information
    • By Paula Younger, Library Manager at Weston Area Health Trust in North Somerset
  • Edited by Paula Younger, Peter Morgan
  • Book:
    Using Web 2.0 for Health Information
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    23 April 2011, pp 79-84

  • Summary

    Introduction

    The ultimate aims of healthcare information are to provide information, whether mediated or directly, and to allow patients or health consumers to maintain a good level of health, manage an existing condition or prevent conditions worsening.

    Under the NHS Constitution, information provision is now a legal right for patients in the UK. Patients have the right to ‘be given information about [the] proposed treatment in advance, including any significant risks and any alternative treatments which may be available, and the risks involved in doing nothing’. In addition, patients have the right ‘to be involved in discussions and decisions about your healthcare, and to be given information to enable…this’ (Department of Health, 2010).

    Web 2.0 would seem to represent a perfect platform for providing patient or consumer information and support for public health in general, offering new, innovative, cost-effective, responsive and timely ways in which to provide that information.

    What sources do patients use for information?

    In the UK, patients attending their GP surgery (family practitioner) or being discharged from hospital will often be given an information leaflet about their condition which may or may not include details of websites. There are some excellent websites, such as www.patient.co.uk. Many charities also provide a wide range of well researched information, often available for free download from their websites. When medicines are purchased, whether on prescription or over the counter, information leaflets are provided in the packaging.

    Some dissatisfaction has been expressed by patients regarding the information they receive from medical and healthcare professionals, nonetheless (Kinnersley et al., 2008). Further, studies suggest that although many patients use health websites that have been put together by government-backed organizations, such as NHS Direct and the BBC, these sites do not necessarily meet their needs (Huntington et al., 2007). In future, however, the way in which patients and health consumers receive their health information may well be through a computer-mediated avatar (Van den Brekel, 2007).

    What is of consequence to us as potential mediators of information, then, is the reason why patients would turn to the Web 2.0 realm for health information. Change appears to be taking place in many areas: on the one hand, there is distrust of authority and experts; on the other, an information explosion has been made possible by modern information and communication technologies (Lor and General, 2008).

  • 3 - Emerging technologies in health, medical and nursing education

  • from Part 2 - Web 2.0 and the implications for health information
  • Edited by Paula Younger, Peter Morgan
  • Book:
    Using Web 2.0 for Health Information
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    23 April 2011, pp 29-52

  • Summary

    Introduction

    Appropriate use of online technologies in healthcare education can reduce costs, maximize utility of scarce resources, as well as extend temporal and geographic access to educational content. Those factors alone would serve as valid justification for exploring their use; however, there is more. Online social environments can provide access to educational experiences that are not possible or ethical in face-to-face environments, can extend access to patient communities, and can actually provide new and enriched therapeutic and support environments for both education and clinical practice. Being aware of new and emerging uses of technology in healthcare and having the practical skills to stay current in these areas are no longer optional or a nicety. Rather, they are essential for clinicians of the future, who will require this knowledge in order to remain functional in evolving clinical practice and to communicate efficiently and credibly with certain patient populations.

    The use of emerging technologies in healthcare education has particular relevance in addressing the recent Carnegie Report observation that ‘learners have inadequate opportunities to work with patients over time and to observe the course of illness and recovery; students and residents often poorly understand non-clinical physician roles’ (Cooke, Irby and O'Brien, 2010). Simulations, virtual reality and virtual worlds are particularly valuable in addressing the latter, while social technologies and mobile applications are especially well suited for the former. Gaming and serious games can be applied in both of these environments as well as many others, depending on the design and intent of the program. In this chapter, several major online educational technologies will be reviewed for their application to healthcare education, with specific examples provided to illustrate their use.

    Emerging technologies in education

    Instead, by apprenticeship we mean a range of integrative learning required for any professional that includes (1) instantiating, articulating, and making visible and accessible key aspects of competent and expert performance; (2) giving learners a chance for supervised practice; (3) coaching in the supervised practice to help students understand, reflect on, and articulate their practice, particularly the nature of particular clinical situations; (4) helping novice students recognize the priorities and demands embedded in particular clinical situations so that they gain a sense of salience, that is, what must be attended to and addressed in relation to the significance and urgency in the particular clinical situation; and (5) reflection on practice to help the student develop a self-improving practice.

Page 224 of 293