<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" version="2.0">
	<channel>
				<title>Top 10 Most Tweeted JMIR Articles(All Time)</title>
		<link>http://www.jmir.org/stats/feed</link>
		<description />
		                

	                                <atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/Top10TwAll" /><feedburner:info uri="top10twall" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" /><item>
                    <title>Can Tweets Predict Citations? Metrics of Social Impact Based on Twitter and Correlation with Traditional Metrics of Scientific Impact</title>
                    <description>Background: Citations in peer-reviewed articles and the impact factor are generally accepted measures of scientific impact. Web 2.0 tools such as Twitter, blogs or social bookmarking tools provide the possibility to construct innovative article-level or journal-level metrics to gauge impact and influence. However, the relationship of the these new metrics to traditional metrics such as citations is not known. Objective: (1) To explore the feasibility of measuring social impact of and public attention to scholarly articles by analyzing buzz in social media, (2) to explore the dynamics, content, and timing of tweets relative to the publication of a scholarly article, and (3) to explore whether these metrics are sensitive and specific enough to predict highly cited articles. Methods: Between July 2008 and November 2011, all tweets containing links to articles in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR) were mined. For a subset of 1573 tweets about 55 articles published between issues 3/2009 and 2/2010, different metrics of social media impact were calculated and compared against subsequent citation data from Scopus and Google Scholar 17 to 29 months later. A heuristic to predict the top-cited articles in each issue through tweet metrics was validated. Results: A total of 4208 tweets cited 286 distinct JMIR articles. The distribution of tweets over the first 30 days after article publication followed a power law (Zipf, Bradford, or Pareto distribution), with most tweets sent on the day when an article was published (1458/3318, 43.94% of all tweets in a 60-day period) or on the following day (528/3318, 15.9%), followed by a rapid decay. The Pearson correlations between tweetations and citations were moderate and statistically significant, with correlation coefficients ranging from .42 to .72 for the log-transformed Google Scholar citations, but were less clear for Scopus citations and rank correlations. A linear multivariate model with time and tweets as significant predictors (P &amp;#60; .001) could explain 27% of the variation of citations. Highly tweeted articles were 11 times more likely to be highly cited than less-tweeted articles (9/12 or 75% of highly tweeted article were highly cited, while only 3/43 or 7% of less-tweeted articles were highly cited; rate ratio 0.75/0.07 = 10.75, 95% confidence interval, 3.4–33.6). Top-cited articles can be predicted from top-tweeted articles with 93% specificity and 75% sensitivity.  Conclusions: Tweets can predict highly cited articles within the first 3 days of article publication. Social media activity either increases citations or reflects the underlying qualities of the article that also predict citations, but the true use of these metrics is to measure the distinct concept of social impact. Social impact measures based on tweets are proposed to complement traditional citation metrics. The proposed twimpact factor may be a useful and timely metric to measure uptake of research findings and to filter research findings resonating with the public in real time. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;				
																					Tweets: 969 | Tweets Influence Factor: 1,704.00 | Twimpact Factor (tw7): 536 | Twindex7: 100&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Top10TwAll/~4/1zQcZCd69Zs" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
                    
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Top10TwAll/~3/1zQcZCd69Zs/</link>
                    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:38:26 EST</pubDate>
                    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmir.org/2011/4/e123/</guid>
                                <feedburner:origLink>http://www.jmir.org/2011/4/e123/</feedburner:origLink></item>
                                        <item>
                    <title>A 12-Week Commercial Web-Based Weight-Loss Program for Overweight and Obese Adults: Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Basic Versus Enhanced Features</title>
                    <description>Background: The development and use of Web-based programs for weight loss is increasing rapidly, yet they have rarely been evaluated using randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Interestingly, most people who attempt weight loss use commercially available programs, yet it is very uncommon for commercial programs to be evaluated independently or rigorously. Objective: To compare the efficacy of a standard commercial Web-based weight-loss program (basic) versus an enhanced version of this Web program that provided additional personalized e-feedback and contact from the provider (enhanced) versus a wait-list control group (control) on weight outcomes in overweight and obese adults. Methods: This purely Web-based trial using a closed online user group was an assessor-blinded RCT with participants randomly allocated to the basic or enhanced 12-week Web-based program, based on social cognitive theory, or the control, with body mass index (BMI) as the primary outcome. Results: We enrolled 309 adults (129/309, 41.8% male, BMI mean 32.3, SD 4 kg/m2) with 84.1% (260/309) retention at 12 weeks. Intention-to-treat analysis showed that both intervention groups reduced their BMI compared with the controls (basic: &amp;#8211;0.72, SD 1.1 kg/m2, enhanced: &amp;#8211;1.0, SD 1.4, control: 0.15, SD 0.82; P &amp;#60; .001) and lost significant weight (basic: &amp;#8211;2.1, SD 3.3 kg, enhanced: &amp;#8211;3.0, SD 4.1, control: 0.4, SD 2.3; P &amp;#60; .001) with changes in waist circumference (basic: &amp;#8211;2.0, SD 3.5 cm, enhanced: &amp;#8211;3.2, SD 4.7, control: 0.5, SD 3.0; P &amp;#60; .001) and waist-to-height ratio (basic: &amp;#8211;0.01, SD 0.02, enhanced: &amp;#8211;0.02, SD 0.03, control: 0.0, SD 0.02; P &amp;#60; .001), but no differences were observed between the basic and enhanced groups. The addition of personalized e-feedback and contact provided limited additional benefits compared with the basic program. Conclusions: A commercial Web-based weight-loss program can be efficacious across a range of weight-related outcomes and lifestyle behaviors and achieve clinically important weight loss. Although the provision of additional personalized feedback did not facilitate greater weight loss after 12 weeks, the impact of superior participant retention on longer-term outcomes requires further study. Further research is required to determine the optimal mix of program features that lead to the biggest treatment impact over time. Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): 12610000197033; http://www.anzctr.org.au/trial_view.aspx?id=335159 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/66Wq0Yb7U) &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;				
																					Tweets: 255 | Tweets Influence Factor: 801.00 | Twimpact Factor (tw7): 253 | Twindex7: 100&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Top10TwAll/~4/ro10JYjA4VY" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
                    
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Top10TwAll/~3/ro10JYjA4VY/</link>
                    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:50:12 EDT</pubDate>
                    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmir.org/2012/2/e57/</guid>
                                <feedburner:origLink>http://www.jmir.org/2012/2/e57/</feedburner:origLink></item>
                                        <item>
                    <title>Primary Care Providers&amp;#8217; Perspectives on Online Weight-Loss Programs: A Big Wish List</title>
                    <description>Background: Integrating online weight-loss programs into the primary care setting could yield substantial public health benefit. Little is known about primary care providers&amp;#8217; perspectives on online weight-loss programs. Objective: To assess primary care providers&amp;#8217; perspectives on online weight-loss programs. Methods: We conducted focus group discussions with providers in family medicine, internal medicine, and combined internal medicine/pediatrics in Texas and Pennsylvania, USA. Open-ended questions addressed their experience with and attitudes toward online weight-loss programs; useful characteristics of existing online weight-loss programs; barriers to referring patients to online weight-loss programs; and preferred characteristics of an ideal online weight-loss program. Transcripts were analyzed with the grounded theory approach to identify major themes. Results: A total of 44 primary care providers participated in 9 focus groups. The mean age was 45 (SD 9) years. Providers had limited experience with structured online weight-loss programs and were uncertain about their safety and efficacy. They thought motivated, younger patients would be more likely than others to respond to an online weight-loss program. According to primary care providers, an ideal online weight-loss program would provide&amp;#8212;at no cost to the patient&amp;#8212;a structured curriculum addressing motivation, psychological issues, and problem solving; tools for tracking diet, exercise, and weight loss; and peer support monitored by experts. Primary care providers were interested in receiving reports about patients from the online weight-loss programs, but were concerned about the time required to review and act on the reports. Conclusions: Primary care providers have high expectations for how online weight-loss programs should deliver services to patients and fit into the clinical workflow. Efforts to integrate online weight-loss programs into the primary care setting should address efficacy and safety of online weight-loss programs in clinic-based populations; acceptable methods of sending reports to primary care providers about their patients&amp;#8217; progress; and elimination or reduction of costs to patients. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;				
																					Tweets: 213 | Tweets Influence Factor: 123.00 | Twimpact Factor (tw7): 175 | Twindex7: 100&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Top10TwAll/~4/ZU6lfYWdGr0" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
                    
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Top10TwAll/~3/ZU6lfYWdGr0/</link>
                    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:54:18 EST</pubDate>
                    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmir.org/2012/1/e16/</guid>
                                <feedburner:origLink>http://www.jmir.org/2012/1/e16/</feedburner:origLink></item>
                                        <item>
                    <title>Definition of Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0: A Systematic Review</title>
                    <description>Background: During the last decade, the Internet has become increasingly popular and is now an important part of our daily life. When new “Web 2.0” technologies are used in health care, the terms “Health 2.0" or "Medicine 2.0” may be used. Objective: The objective was to identify unique definitions of Health 2.0/Medicine 2.0 and recurrent topics within the definitions. Methods: A systematic literature review of electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL) and gray literature on the Internet using the search engines Google, Bing, and Yahoo was performed to find unique definitions of Health 2.0/Medicine 2.0. We assessed all literature, extracted unique definitions, and selected recurrent topics by using the constant comparison method. Results: We found a total of 1937 articles, 533 in scientific databases and 1404 in the gray literature. We selected 46 unique definitions for further analysis and identified 7 main topics. Conclusions: Health 2.0/Medicine 2.0 are still developing areas. Many articles concerning this subject were found, primarily on the Internet. However, there is still no general consensus regarding the definition of Health 2.0/Medicine 2.0. We hope that this study will contribute to building the concept of Health 2.0/Medicine 2.0 and facilitate discussion and further research. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;				
																					Tweets: 173 | Tweets Influence Factor: 370.00 | Twimpact Factor (tw7): 65 | Twindex7: 100&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Top10TwAll/~4/BlE0fzRIhuE" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
                    
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Top10TwAll/~3/BlE0fzRIhuE/</link>
                    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:39:28 EDT</pubDate>
                    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmir.org/2010/2/e18/</guid>
                                <feedburner:origLink>http://www.jmir.org/2010/2/e18/</feedburner:origLink></item>
                                        <item>
                    <title>Social Media Use in the United States: Implications for Health Communication</title>
                    <description>Background:  Given the rapid changes in the communication landscape brought about by participative Internet use and social media, it is important to develop a better understanding of these technologies and their impact on health communication. The first step in this effort is to identify the characteristics of current social media users. Up-to-date reporting of current social media use will help monitor the growth of social media and inform health promotion/communication efforts aiming to effectively utilize social media. Objective:  The purpose of the study is to identify the sociodemographic and health-related factors associated with current adult social media users in the United States. Methods:  Data came from the 2007 iteration of the Health Information National Trends Study (HINTS, N = 7674). HINTS is a nationally representative cross-sectional survey on health-related communication trends and practices. Survey respondents who reported having accessed the Internet (N = 5078) were asked whether, over the past year, they had (1) participated in an online support group, (2) written in a blog, (3) visited a social networking site. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify predictors of each type of social media use. Results:  Approximately 69% of US adults reported having access to the Internet in 2007. Among Internet users, 5% participated in an online support group, 7% reported blogging, and 23% used a social networking site. Multivariate analysis found that younger age was the only significant predictor of blogging and social networking site participation; a statistically significant linear relationship was observed, with younger categories reporting more frequent use. Younger age, poorer subjective health, and a personal cancer experience predicted support group participation. In general, social media are penetrating the US population independent of education, race/ethnicity, or health care access. Conclusions:  Recent growth of social media is not uniformly distributed across age groups; therefore, health communication programs utilizing social media must first consider the age of the targeted population to help ensure that messages reach the intended audience. While racial/ethnic and health status&amp;#8211;related disparities exist in Internet access, among those with Internet access, these characteristics do not affect social media use. This finding suggests that the new technologies, represented by social media, may be changing the communication pattern throughout the United States. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;				
																					Tweets: 158 | Tweets Influence Factor: 367.00 | Twimpact Factor (tw7): 97 | Twindex7: 100&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Top10TwAll/~4/LzwudJhjrpw" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
                    
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Top10TwAll/~3/LzwudJhjrpw/</link>
                    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:24:54 EST</pubDate>
                    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmir.org/2009/4/e48/</guid>
                                <feedburner:origLink>http://www.jmir.org/2009/4/e48/</feedburner:origLink></item>
                                        <item>
                    <title>Use of Social Media by Western European Hospitals: Longitudinal Study</title>
                    <description>Background: Patients increasingly use social media to communicate. Their stories could support quality improvements in participatory health care and could support patient-centered care. Active use of social media by health care institutions could also speed up communication and information provision to patients and their families, thus increasing quality even more. Hospitals seem to be becoming aware of the benefits social media could offer. Data from the United States show that hospitals increasingly use social media, but it is unknown whether and how Western European hospitals use social media. Objective: To identify to what extent Western European hospitals use social media. Methods: In this longitudinal study, we explored the use of social media by hospitals in 12 Western European countries through an Internet search. We collected data for each country during the following three time periods: April to August 2009, August to December 2010, and April to July 2011. Results: We included 873 hospitals from 12 Western European countries, of which 732 were general hospitals and 141 were university hospitals. The number of included hospitals per country ranged from 6 in Luxembourg to 347 in Germany. We found hospitals using social media in all countries. The use of social media increased significantly over time, especially for YouTube (n = 19, 2% to n = 172, 19.7%), LinkedIn (n =179, 20.5% to n = 278, 31.8%), and Facebook (n = 85, 10% to n = 585, 67.0%). Differences in social media usage between the included countries were significant. Conclusions: Social media awareness in Western European hospitals is growing, as well as its use. Social media usage differs significantly between countries. Except for the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, the group of hospitals that is using social media remains small. Usage of LinkedIn for recruitment shows the awareness of the potential of social media. Future research is needed to investigate how social media lead to improved health care. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;				
																					Tweets: 132 | Tweets Influence Factor: 332.00 | Twimpact Factor (tw7): 108 | Twindex7: 95&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Top10TwAll/~4/ZDByCKYWpgM" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
                    
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Top10TwAll/~3/ZDByCKYWpgM/</link>
                    <pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2012 09:49:51 EDT</pubDate>
                    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmir.org/2012/3/e61/</guid>
                                <feedburner:origLink>http://www.jmir.org/2012/3/e61/</feedburner:origLink></item>
                                        <item>
                    <title>Wikipedia: A Key Tool for Global Public Health Promotion</title>
                    <description>The Internet has become an important health information resource for patients and the general public. Wikipedia, a collaboratively written Web-based encyclopedia, has become the dominant online reference work. It is usually among the top results of search engine queries, including when medical information is sought. Since April 2004, editors have formed a group called WikiProject Medicine to coordinate and discuss the English-language Wikipedia&amp;#8217;s medical content. This paper, written by members of the WikiProject Medicine, discusses the intricacies, strengths, and weaknesses of Wikipedia as a source of health information and compares it with other medical wikis. Medical professionals, their societies, patient groups, and institutions can help improve Wikipedia&amp;#8217;s health-related entries. Several examples of partnerships already show that there is enthusiasm to strengthen Wikipedia&amp;#8217;s biomedical content. Given its unique global reach, we believe its possibilities for use as a tool for worldwide health promotion are underestimated. We invite the medical community to join in editing Wikipedia, with the goal of providing people with free access to reliable, understandable, and up-to-date health information.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;				
																					Tweets: 114 | Tweets Influence Factor: 337.00 | Twimpact Factor (tw7): 66 | Twindex7: 100&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Top10TwAll/~4/lUxuop04fGo" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
                    
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Top10TwAll/~3/lUxuop04fGo/</link>
                    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Jan 2011 11:08:38 EST</pubDate>
                    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmir.org/2011/1/e14/</guid>
                                <feedburner:origLink>http://www.jmir.org/2011/1/e14/</feedburner:origLink></item>
                                        <item>
                    <title>Crowdsourced Health Research Studies: An Important Emerging Complement to Clinical Trials in the Public Health Research Ecosystem</title>
                    <description>Background: Crowdsourced health research studies are the nexus of three contemporary trends: 1) citizen science (non-professionally trained individuals conducting science-related activities); 2) crowdsourcing (use of web-based technologies to recruit project participants); and 3) medicine 2.0 / health 2.0 (active participation of individuals in their health care particularly using web 2.0 technologies). Crowdsourced health research studies have arisen as a natural extension of the activities of health social networks (online health interest communities), and can be researcher-organized or participant-organized. In the last few years, professional researchers have been crowdsourcing cohorts from health social networks for the conduct of traditional studies. Participants have also begun to organize their own research studies through health social networks and health collaboration communities created especially for the purpose of self-experimentation and the investigation of health-related concerns. Objective: The objective of this analysis is to undertake a comprehensive narrative review of crowdsourced health research studies. This review will assess the status, impact, and prospects of crowdsourced health research studies. Methods: Crowdsourced health research studies were identified through a search of literature published from 2000 to 2011 and informal interviews conducted 2008-2011. Keyword terms related to crowdsourcing were sought in Medline/PubMed. Papers that presented results from human health studies that included crowdsourced populations were selected for inclusion. Crowdsourced health research studies not published in the scientific literature were identified by attending industry conferences and events, interviewing attendees, and reviewing related websites. Results: Participatory health is a growing area with individuals using health social networks, crowdsourced studies, smartphone health applications, and personal health records to achieve positive outcomes for a variety of health conditions. PatientsLikeMe and 23andMe are the leading operators of researcher-organized, crowdsourced health research studies. These operators have published findings in the areas of disease research, drug response, user experience in crowdsourced studies, and genetic association. Quantified Self, Genomera, and DIYgenomics are communities of participant-organized health research studies where individuals conduct self-experimentation and group studies. Crowdsourced health research studies have a diversity of intended outcomes and levels of scientific rigor. Conclusions: Participatory health initiatives are becoming part of the public health ecosystem and their rapid growth is facilitated by Internet and social networking influences. Large-scale parameter-stratified cohorts have potential to facilitate a next-generation understanding of disease and drug response. Not only is the large size of crowdsourced cohorts an asset to medical discovery, too is the near-immediate speed at which medical findings might be tested and applied. Participatory health initiatives are expanding the scope of medicine from a traditional focus on disease cure to a personalized preventive approach. Crowdsourced health research studies are a promising complement and extension to traditional clinical trials as a model for the conduct of health research. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;				
																					Tweets: 111 | Tweets Influence Factor: 315.00 | Twimpact Factor (tw7): 67 | Twindex7: 100&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Top10TwAll/~4/7uvy1cCpClc" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
                    
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Top10TwAll/~3/7uvy1cCpClc/</link>
                    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2012 12:23:52 EST</pubDate>
                    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmir.org/2012/2/e46/</guid>
                                <feedburner:origLink>http://www.jmir.org/2012/2/e46/</feedburner:origLink></item>
                                        <item>
                    <title>Sharing Health Data for Better Outcomes on PatientsLikeMe</title>
                    <description>Background: PatientsLikeMe is an online quantitative personal research platform for patients with life-changing illnesses to share their experience using patient-reported outcomes, find other patients like them matched on demographic and clinical characteristics, and learn from the aggregated data reports of others to improve their outcomes. The goal of the website is to help patients answer the question: “Given my status, what is the best outcome I can hope to achieve, and how do I get there?” Objective: Using a cross-sectional online survey, we sought to describe the potential benefits of PatientsLikeMe in terms of treatment decisions, symptom management, clinical management, and outcomes. Methods: Almost 7,000 members from six PatientsLikeMe communities (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis [ALS], Multiple Sclerosis [MS], Parkinson’s Disease, human immunodeficiency virus [HIV], fibromyalgia, and mood disorders) were sent a survey invitation using an internal survey tool (PatientsLikeMe Lens). Results: Complete responses were received from 1323 participants (19% of invited members). Between-group demographics varied according to disease community. Users perceived the greatest benefit in learning about a symptom they had experienced; 72% (952 of 1323) rated the site “moderately” or “very helpful.” Patients also found the site helpful for understanding the side effects of their treatments (n = 757, 57%). Nearly half of patients (n = 559, 42%) agreed that the site had helped them find another patient who had helped them understand what it was like to take a specific treatment for their condition. More patients found the site helpful with decisions to start a medication (n = 496, 37%) than to change a medication (n = 359, 27%), change a dosage (n = 336, 25%), or stop a medication (n = 290, 22%). Almost all participants (n = 1,249, 94%) were diagnosed when they joined the site. Most (n = 824, 62%) experienced no change in their confidence in that diagnosis or had an increased level of confidence (n = 456, 34%). Use of the site was associated with increasing levels of comfort in sharing personal health information among those who had initially been uncomfortable. Overall, 12% of patients (n = 151 of 1320) changed their physician as a result of using the site; this figure was doubled in patients with fibromyalgia (21%, n = 33 of 150). Patients reported community-specific benefits: 41% of HIV patients (n = 72 of 177) agreed they had reduced risky behaviors and 22% of mood disorders patients (n = 31 of 141) agreed they needed less inpatient care as a result of using the site. Analysis of the Web access logs showed that participants who used more features of the site (eg, posted in the online forum) perceived greater benefit. Conclusions: We have established that members of the community reported a range of benefits, and that these may be related to the extent of site use. Third party validation and longitudinal evaluation is an important next step in continuing to evaluate the potential of online data-sharing platforms. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;				
																					Tweets: 110 | Tweets Influence Factor: 247.00 | Twimpact Factor (tw7): 46 | Twindex7: 95&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Top10TwAll/~4/dk1atn8_m8U" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
                    
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Top10TwAll/~3/dk1atn8_m8U/</link>
                    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Jun 2010 09:55:49 EDT</pubDate>
                    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmir.org/2010/2/e19/</guid>
                                <feedburner:origLink>http://www.jmir.org/2010/2/e19/</feedburner:origLink></item>
                                        <item>
                    <title>A Survey of Health-Related Activities on Second Life</title>
                    <description>Background:  Increasingly, governments, health care agencies, companies, and private groups have chosen Second Life as part of their Web 2.0 communication strategies. Second Life offers unique design features for disseminating health information, training health professionals, and enabling patient education for both academic and commercial health behavior research. Objectives:  This study aimed to survey and categorize the range of health-related activities on Second Life; to examine the design attributes of the most innovative and popular sites; and to assess the potential utility of Second Life for the dissemination of health information and for health behavior change. Methods:  We used three separate search strategies to identify health-related sites on Second Life. The first used the application&amp;#8217;s search engine, entering both generic and select illness-specific keywords, to seek out sites. The second identified sites through a comprehensive review of print, blog, and media sources discussing health activities on Second Life. We then visited each site and used a snowball method to identify other health sites until we reached saturation (no new health sites were identified). The content, user experience, and chief purpose of each site were tabulated as well as basic site information, including user traffic data and site size. Results:  We found a wide range of health-related activities on Second Life, and a diverse group of users, including organizations, groups, and individuals. For many users, Second Life activities are a part of their Web 2.0 communication strategy. The most common type of health-related site in our sample (n = 68) were those whose principle aim was patient education or to increase awareness about health issues. The second most common type of site were support sites, followed by training sites, and marketing sites. Finally, a few sites were purpose-built to conduct research in SL or to recruit participants for real-life research. Conclusions:  Studies show that behaviors from virtual worlds can translate to the real world. Our survey suggests that users are engaged in a range of health-related activities in Second Life which are potentially impacting real-life behaviors. Further research evaluating the impact of health-related activities on Second Life is warranted. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;				
																					Tweets: 90 | Tweets Influence Factor: 311.00 | Twimpact Factor (tw7): 55 | Twindex7: 100&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Top10TwAll/~4/ZVasPqobnRY" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
                    
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Top10TwAll/~3/ZVasPqobnRY/</link>
                    <pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2009 13:32:33 EDT</pubDate>
                    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmir.org/2009/2/e17/</guid>
                                <feedburner:origLink>http://www.jmir.org/2009/2/e17/</feedburner:origLink></item>
            	</channel>
</rss>

