How did we go about it?

Description of your first forum.
Post Reply
Bappy11
Posts: 483
Joined: Sun Dec 22, 2024 9:29 am

How did we go about it?

Post by Bappy11 »

Short stories via Twitter (@Twaaltjes), opinion polls via Facebook ( GGZ Friesland ) and a glimpse into the life of a psychosis patient via YouTube ( Parnassia.nl ). It is clear: the GGZ manifests itself in all kinds of ways via social media. The question is what institutions want to achieve with this presence.

Do they dutifully join in because of the increasing interest in the media? Or do they signal that patients want to ask questions via channels that suit them and at a time that suits them? I fervently hope the latter. The picture is mixed: some institutions use social media very functionally, others are on Twitter without a profile and have the well-known egg as a profile picture.

Today the second edition of the Social Media Monitor Zorg is published , which thailand telegram is fully focused on mental health care. Where the first edition (March 2011) covered almost the entire health care sector, it was now decided to zoom in on one subsegment. Reason for this focus: relevance and depth. In this article I will discuss the most important and striking results.

With the experience of 2011, we have done a number of things differently this year. Last year, we received a number of comments that we had not looked at the correct account. To prevent this, we made an appeal via Twitter at the end of July to all institutions that are represented there (88 of the total of 133 institutions examined).

Crowdsourcing in short! The request was to fill out a short form on the research website. In addition to general tweets, all institutions received a mention. Just under a quarter responded to this call. The summer period will have played a role in this, but even then I find the percentage on the low side. Not all institutions respond to a message that is personally addressed to them.

What were we looking at?
The other change is in the methodology, or the way of analyzing. Last year we looked at presence, popularity and activity. That led to criticism, so all the more reason to stay close to the zeitgeist this year. The measurement areas of this year are:
Post Reply