The document discusses the emergence of third generation social media sites for healthcare professionals. It outlines three generations of sites: 1) consumer sites, 2) anonymous third party communities, and 3) institution-led sites with identity and work integration. An example of a third generation site, GI Circle, is described which was launched by the American College of Gastroenterology. It achieved high rates of adoption and engagement among attendees of a medical conference. The document concludes with lessons learned, emphasizing the importance of integration, context, compliance, cultivation over time, and relationship-focused metrics over simple web traffic metrics.

1. Healthcare
Professionals and
Social Media
February 2010
Within3 Confidential

3. Are Healthcare Professionals really different than Consumers?
?

4. Real HCP networking - A medical conference poster session.

5. “3rd Generation” HCP social media sites are rushing onto the scene.
3rd Genera0on:
Ins0tu0on‐led with Iden0ty & Work
2nd Genera0on:
Third Party, Anonymous Communi0es
1st Genera0on:
The consumer sites

6. “3rd Generation” HCP social media sites are rushing onto the scene.
Ins0tu0on‐led with Iden0ty & Work
3rd Genera0on:
Ins0tu0on‐led with Iden0ty & Work
Third Party, Anonymous Communi0es
2nd Genera0on:
Third Party, Anonymous Communi0es
The Consumer Sites
1st Genera0on:
The consumer sites

7. The American College of Gastroenterology launched GI Circle in
October, 2009.
Page 7

8. HCPs waited in line to join GI Circle at its launch.
Page 8

9. Real work happens here: Authors discussing their abstracts online.
Page 9

10. No one is anonymous in GI Circle.

11. How was user adoption?
• More than 25% of mee0ng aNendees
(1,100 of ~4,000 aNendees) ac0vated their
accounts within the first five days of launch
• More than 40% of abstracts presented at
the mee0ng (480 of ~1,200 abstracts) were
“claimed” by their authors in the
community
• Thousands of searches for people and
content were executed during the mee0ng
• Hundreds of network connec0ons
between members formed
Online kiosks were open during the mee0ng to allow
• Key sharing among members: Discussions, annual mee0ngs aNendees to the online community.
private messages, and workspace requests
Page 11

12. How many “clicks” was that again?
Low‐Rela7onship ‐ Web 1.0 Measures
Increasing Business Value • Tracking your Traffic
High‐Rela7onship Community Measures
• Knowing Your Members
• Building Engagement
• Being In the Discussion
• Building Influence
Business Outcome Measures
• Business Goals and ROI
• Vary by Community Type

13. Online Communi7es provide significantly more opportuni7es for business
value than “web 1.0” sites.
Low‐Rela7onship ‐ Web 1.0 Measures
Track Your “Traffic”: Visits, Unique Visitors, Page Views, Click‐Throughs
High‐Rela7onship ‐ Community Measures
Knowing Your Members Building Engagement Being in the Discussion Building your Influence
• CV Informa0on Updates • Interac0ons (Discussions, • Leader‐to‐Member • Network Reach
• Contact Informa0on Polls, Documents, News, Interac0ons • Key Topic Responses
Updates etc) ‐> Posted, Responded, • Key Topic Discourse • Iden0fica0on of Champions
• Publica0ons Added Voted, Shared, or • Responses to Leader • Member Growth
• Clinical Trials Subscrip0ons Posts • Growth of Related Programs
• Added Clinical Interests • Power‐Law Measurement • User Percep0on of • User Presenta0ons or
• Added Research Interests • Peers Invited Community References
• Connec0ons Formed • Offline Discussion • Key Segment Analysis
• Directory Searches Generated
Example Business Outcome Measures
Key Opinion Leader Medical Associa7on Advisory Board Clinical Trial
• MD to company Interac0ons • Author Par0cipa0on • Materials Review • % Par0cipa0on
• New MD Rela0onships • New Science Augmented Compliance • Efficiency‐Related
Formed • New Science Disseminated • % Par0cipa0on on Discussion
• Science Exchanged • Member Engagement Assigned Tasks • Alert Recep0on
• Connec0ons Brokered between Live Mee0ngs • Value of Informa0on Compliance
between MDs • Email Address Updates Received • Timeliness of
• KOLs Emerging as Brand • CommiNee Efficiency • Moderator Opinion Submission of Forms
Champions • Member Growth • Total Cost of Ownership and Data
• Invita0ons Accepted

14. A different example: A community of Key Opinion Leaders
• MD Interac0ons improved mul0‐
fold year over year.
• Hundreds of private messages sent
over community plaiorm.
• Several “High Touch” events such
as webinars and user‐generated
“features” were generated.
• Four community‐connected KOLs
emerged as key champions.
As the KOL Network solidified, new leaders
• Regional community now emerged.
expanding na0onally.

15. Some lessons to be learned from 3rd generation HCP online
communities:
1. A New Channel is Burs7ng onto the Scene: Not since the early days of the web
has there been such a shij in the online channel. Being first ma-ers.
2. Integra7on is Key: Integrate “offline” events, communica0on strategies, and
content with online community events.
3. “Context” is King: HCP Communi0es require content, real work, real networks, user
safety, and “corporate branding.”
4. Understand Key Regulatory and Compliance Pre‐Requisites: HIPAA and Stark
for Hospitals, Off‐Label/AE for Pharmcos, Privacy and Confiden0ality for everyone.
5. Communi7es aren’t simply “launched”, they are “cul7vated”: Social
principles apply – especially in the early days of a community.
6. Think beyond Web 1.0 Metrics: There’s a lot more to ROI than simply “traffic”.