Special Issue:
Utilizing Technology in the COVID 19 era
|
|
|
Positive and negative impact of social media in the COVID-19 era |
A. Verner Venegas-Vera1, *( ), Gates B Colbert2, Edgar V. Lerma3 |
1Division of Internal Medicine, Mexican Institute of Social Security, Merida, 97150, Yucatan, Mexico 2Division of Nephrology, Texas A&M College of Medicine at Dallas, 75246, Texas, United States 3University of Illinois at Chicago/Advocate Christ Medical Center, Oak Lawn, 60453, IL, United States |
|
|
Abstract:
Social Media usage has been shown to increase in situations of natural disaster and other crises. It is crucial for the scientific community to understand how social media works in order to enhance our capabilities and make a more resilient community. Through social media communication, the scientific community can collaborate around the globe in a faster way the most important findings of a disease, with a decreased knowledge transition time to other healthcare providers (HCPs). This is greatly important to coordinate research and knowledge during a time of uncertainty and protentional fake news. During the 2020 global pandemic, social media has become an ally but also a potential threat. High volumes of information compressed into a short period can result in overwhelmed HCPs trying to discern fact from noise. A major limitation of social media currently is the ability to quickly disseminate false information which can confuse and distract. Society relies on educated scientists and physicians to be leaders in delivering fact-based information to the public. For this reason, in times of crises it is important to be leaders in the conversation of social media to guide correct and helpful information and knowledge to the masses looking for answers.
|
Submitted: 10 September 2020
Revised: 07 October 2020
Accepted: 06 December 2020
Published: 30 December 2020
|
*Corresponding Author(s):
A. Verner Venegas-Vera
E-mail: verner.venegas@gmail.com
|
[1] |
Eli M. Roth, Michael H. Davidson. PCSK9 Inhibitors: Mechanism of Action, Efficacy, and Safety[J]. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2018, 19(S1): 31
-46
. |
[2] |
Sandeep K. Krishnan, Norman E. Lepor. Acute and Chronic Cardiovascular Effects of Hyperkalemia: New Insights Into Prevention and Clinical Management[J]. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2016, 17(S1): 9
-21
. |
[3] |
Ibrahim Sidiqi, Patrick Alexander. Current Advances in Endovascular Therapy for Infrapopliteal Artery Disease[J]. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2015, 16(1): 36
-50
. |
[4] |
Prakash C. Deedwania. Management of Patients With Stable Angina and Type 2 Diabetes[J]. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2015, 16(2): 105
-113
. |
[5] |
Peter Shalit. Management of Dyslipidemia in Patients With Human Immunodeficiency Virus[J]. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2014, 15(S1): 38
-46
. |
[6] |
Sophie Mavrogeni, Fabrizio Cantini, Gerald M. Pohost. Systemic Vasculitis: An Underestimated Cause of Heart Failure—Assessment by Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance[J]. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2013, 14(1): 49
-55
. |
[7] |
George L. Smith. Appropriate Use Criteria: The Gold Standard, or a Mechanism for the Derogation of Clinical Judgment?[J]. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2011, 12(2): 105
. |
[8] |
Prabhjot Singh Nijjar, Anoop Parameswaran, Aman M. Amanullah. Evaluation of Anomalous Aortic Origins of the Coronaries by 64-Slice Cardiac Computed Tomography[J]. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2007, 8(3): 175
-181
. |
[9] |
. SELF-ASSESSMENT POST-TEST[J]. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2006, 7(S2): 51
-52
. |
[10] |
Alice K. Jacobs. Gender Differences in Coronary Revascularization: Does Age Make a Difference?[J]. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2004, 5(1): 68
-70
. |
|
|
Viewed |
|
|
|
Full text
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
|
Cited |
|
|
|
|
|
Shared |
|
|
|
|
|
Discussed |
|
|
|
|