1. +
CDC National Conference
Health Communication, Marketing & Media
August 18, 2010
Using Web 2.0 Social Technology to Build
a Cyber-infrastructure for an Interdisciplinary
Biomedical Research Community of Practice

2. + Background:
Read/Write Web Gaining Popularity
 Web 2.0 social technologies enable and facilitate social
networking, participation, communication, and
knowledge sharing. They aid in the creation of an
organic knowledge base for a Community of Practice
(CoP), built as a byproduct of team collaboration.

3. + Background:
Read/Write Web Gaining Popularity
 A new generation of the Internet advances to platform
Service--‐as--‐a--‐Software (SaaS) solutions.
 Facebook usage increased 700%, and Twitter usage
increased 3,712% from 4/2009 to 4/2010.
 Social media usage increases 15% among Inc. 500
companies.
 69% of McKinsey survey respondents report measureable
benefits of Web 2.0 social technologies in business.
 Technology experts responding to a Pew survey believe
innovative online cooperation could result in more efficient
for--‐profit, non--‐profit, and government agencies by 2020,
but they express concern over resistance to change.

4. + Background:
Read/Write Web Gaining Popularity
 Email is recognized as the number one social software
application.
 Web 2.0 popularity will grow as “Net generation” knowledge
workers enter the workforce.
 Although the importance of multidisciplinary health care
research and accompanying funding opportunities
continues to increase, few evidence--‐based results of
Web 2.0 social technology use in health care are
available.

5. + Purpose:
Web 2.0 in Healthcare
 The goal of this study is to evaluate the utility of Web
2.0 social technology for health care research by
investigating the viability, and then analyzing the use
and associated opinions of research team members to
ascertain benefits for and barriers to improved
collaboration, knowledge sharing and communication.

6. + Methods:
Exploring Innovations
in Peer-to-Peer Collaboration
 The study explored innovative methods to facilitate
collaboration, knowledge sharing, and communication
among a 13--‐member multidisciplinary biomedical
research Community of Practice (CoP) comprised of
faculty and resident physicians, staff, and students from
two major southwestern universities and an institute of
brain research.

7. + Methods:
Exploring Innovations
in Peer-to-Peer Collaboration
 Identified strengths and weaknesses of Web 2.0 social
technologies using a SWOT analysis
 Determined a Web 2.0 social technology platform based on
authors’ selection criteria
 Architected a basic wiki with user-friendly interface, and
then invited and trained users
 Analyzed CoP email and wiki usage
 Administered a survey using Survey Monkey to obtain
CoP perceptions Analyzed 3--‐month baseline data

8. + Results:
Determining a Web 2.0 Platform

9. + Results:
Determining a Web 2.0 Platform

10. + Results:
Determining a Web 2.0 Platform
 Wiki Analytics
 Over 50% of CoP members invited to access the wiki were
faculty and resident physicians.
 Of the 13 members invited, eight (69%) accessed the wiki.
 Of those that accessed the wiki, 14% created a page, and
43% edited, commented, or uploaded an attachment.
 36% of CoP members emailed information to the wiki
administrator instead of uploading to the wiki.

11. + Results:
Determining a Web 2.0 Platform
 Survey Results
 Six members (46%) completed the survey.
 83% were 50 years‐of‐age or older.
 50% were faculty and resident physicians.
 100% indicated comfort logging on.
 83% felt comfortable editing a page.
 50% felt comfortable using the search box.
 33% felt comfortable creating a page.

12. + Results:
Determining a Web 2.0 Platform

13. + Results:
Determining a Web 2.0 Platform

14. + Discussion:
Pilot Study Usage and Trends
This study examined 3‐month baseline findings of a longitudinal, 12‐month project.
 Barriers to adoption and usage:
 University and professional culture
 Time constraints for physicians
 Various levels of technical savvy
 Inoperable with universities’ MOSS Sharepoint software
 Users’ comfort level
 Scheduling training
 University IT concern over safety of protected health
information (PHI)

15. + Discussion:
Pilot Study Usage and Trends
This study examined 3‐month baseline findings of a longitudinal, 12‐month project.
 Benefits to adoption and usage:
 Increase university awareness of the capabilities of Web 2.0
social technologies
 No additional cost to universities
 IT assistance not required; easily implemented without
programming expertise
 Asynchronous communication to bridge gaps in time and
location
 Shared resources and knowledge
 Real‐time documentation and project management
 CoP members perceive wiki is more efficient than email for
sharing, organizing and finding information
 The easier the task, the more likely CoP members use the
wiki

16. + Limitations and Future Direction:
To be continued
Ongoing research for CBPR and resident research teams
 Limitations:
A relatively small number of committee members and
access to only preliminary baseline data placed certain
limitations on the ability to draw conclusions and make
inferences from results.
 Future Direction:
Analyzing committee email and wiki usage and
repeating the survey subsequent to wiki implementation
after 6--‐ and 12--‐months will aid in evaluation.
Additional outcome measures are recommended.

17. + Limitations and Future Direction:
To be continued
Ongoing research for CBPR and resident research teams
 Authors have initiated a similar study for a Community‐
based Participatory Research (CBPR) CoP looking at
“Aging in Place.” A comparison of results between the
current project could show trends.
 Another study is looking at seven resident research teams
adopting a wiki for team group projects.
 Further evidence‐based investigation of Web 2.0 social
technologies for peer‐to‐peer (P2P) collaboration and
communication in health care research are necessary.

18. +
Links and References
or more author information about enterprise 2.0
KMRM.com
ow Companies are Benefiting from Web 2.0
McKinseyQuarterly.com/Business_Technology.com
he Impact of the Internet on Institutions
Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project
PewResearch.org
sing Web 2.0 for Health Care Research and Education
Eysenbach, G. Medicine 2.0: social networking, collaboration,
participation, apomediation, and openness
J Med Internet Res 2008; 10(3):e22
http://www.jmir.org/2008/3/e22/
oulos, K. and Wheeler, S. The emerging Web 2.0 social software:
an enabling suite of sociable technologies in health and health care
education
Health Information & Libraries Journal 2007; 24(1):e23

19. +
Thank You for Visiting with Me!