{"id":36865,"date":"2016-06-14T11:34:07","date_gmt":"2016-06-14T10:34:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/?p=36865"},"modified":"2016-06-14T11:34:07","modified_gmt":"2016-06-14T10:34:07","slug":"william-cayley-whither-the-communication-of-evidence-in-the-social-media-world","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2016\/06\/14\/william-cayley-whither-the-communication-of-evidence-in-the-social-media-world\/","title":{"rendered":"William Cayley: Whither the communication of evidence in the social media world?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"bill_cayley_2\"<\/a>Notwithstanding the epistemological inconsistency inherent in discussions of \u201cmy evidence\u201d vs \u201cyour evidence\u201d (after all, if \u201cevidence\u201d is not about an objectively verifiable shared reality, then it\u2019s not evidence\u201d), I appreciate the call by Douglas Badenoch and Andr\u00e9 Tomlin<\/a> to \u201cdramatically improve the way important new evidence is communicated to the people who need it most.\u201d<\/p>\n

While they helpfully argue for finding ways to use the continually evolving tools of social media to communicate evidence, we need to think carefully not just about platforms, but also about content. Reading tweets and blogs and email updates is certainly a quick-and-easy way to access information, but for those on the writing and dissemination side of the equation, there needs to be careful thought given to how that information is translated from complex findings into accessible \u201ce-bites.\u201d<\/p>\n

A while back I\u2019d posted some thoughts<\/a> (only partly tongue-in-cheek) on the value of \u201cwriting 55 word stories, haikus, sonnets, or even tweets, in order to sharpen our abilities at turning information we have received into meaningful, concise, and clear stories of what is happening with our patients.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

As much as brevity with clarity is important for relaying a patient story, it is also vital for conveying the complexity of medical evidence to our colleagues and our patients. Given the headline-based way we usually get both our general and medical news, it is easy for evidence communication to degenerate into \u201cgood vs bad\u201d \u2013 drug \u201cx\u201d is good, drug \u201cy\u201d is bad, \u201calways do this\u201d, or \u201cnever do that.\u201d While it is true there are some ideas in medicine that seem categorically applicable, in most cases nuance is needed.<\/p>\n

We do have a few conceptual tools to help us.<\/p>\n