Aase, Lee

Introduction Mayo Clinic Connect is an online community of over 100,000 members who support each other through sharing lived experience when facing and managing new diagnoses. The community is moderated by Mayo Clinic staff and volunteer patient mentors. Methods Mayo Clinic breast clinic patients undergoing evaluation received a binder of support resources including a brochure about Mayo Clinic Connect at visits between January and May of 2019. Surveys were distributed at subsequent visits between May and December of 2019 to assess patient awareness about the online resource, participation frequency, purpose of use, and benefits for members, as well as reasons for not joining (non-members). The primary aim was to assess patient resilience, coping, and self-management after joining the online community. Results Nine hundred surveys were distributed, and 102 participants completed surveys between May and December 2019. Forty-five percent ( n = 46) had heard about Mayo Clinic Connect; 34% ( n = 15) through a brochure. The remainder heard about the community from a Mayo Clinic provider (43%; n = 19) or other resources (22%, n = 10; no response n = 2). Twenty percent ( n = 20) of survey participants registered as Breast Cancer group members, and most of this subgroup (55%; n = 11) reported understanding diagnosis, treatment plans, and finding peer support as reasons for joining. Seventy-five percent of Mayo Clinic Connect participants ( n = 15) reported the community met or exceeded expectations. Conclusion This pilot study reveals the potential positive impact of introducing an online peer support group into clinical care plans for patients coping with a new and anxiety-provoking cancer diagnosis.

Background: Cancer patients are at risk for hiccups, but the incidence and impact on quality of life are unclear. Methods: A survey (modified from the Functional Living Index with the inclusion of qualitative elements) was developed and launched on an 80,000-member medical social media platform, Mayo Clinic Connect https://connect.mayoclinic.org/ . Results: Among 213 respondents, 34 (16%; 95% CI: 11, 22%) reported “yes” that they had experienced hiccups with cancer therapy. Of those patients who reported hiccups, only 12 (35%) were men, and most were older than 50 years of age. Over 25% noted that hiccups occurred frequently around the time of cancer therapy; 30% described that hiccups interfered with their leisure or recreational activities; and over 15% described hiccups interfered with their ability to enjoy a meal. A few patients seemed to express frustration with hiccups with comments such as, “Totally uncontrollable,” “It’s extremely pain[ful] with throat cancer,” and “Once I had them bad. Almost choked.” Conclusion: Hiccups occur in16% of patients who are receiving cancer therapy and, by our estimates and extrapolation, appear highly problematic in approximately 5%.

Purpose To study the effect of a planned social media promotion strategy on access of online articles in an established academic medical journal. Method This was a single-masked, randomized controlled trial using articles published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings , a large-circulation general/internal medicine journal. Articles published during the months of October, November, and December 2015 (n = 68) were randomized to social media promotion (SoMe) using Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn or to no social media promotion (NoSoMe), for 30 days (beginning with the date of online article publication). Journal website visits and full-text article downloads were compared for 0–30 and 31–60 days following online publication between SoMe versus NoSoMe using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Results Website access of articles from 0 to 30 days was significantly higher in the SoMe group (n = 34) compared with the NoSoMe group (n = 34): 1,070 median downloads versus 265, P < .001. Similarly, full-text article downloads from 0–30 days were significantly higher in the SoMe group: 1,042 median downloads versus 142, P < .001. Compared with the NoSoMe articles, articles randomized to SoMe received a greater number of website visits via Twitter (90 vs 1), Facebook (526 vs 2.5), and LinkedIn (31.5 vs 0)—all P < .001. Conclusions Articles randomized to SoMe were more widely accessed compared with those without social media promotion. These findings show a possible role, benefit, and need for further study of a carefully planned social media promotion strategy in an academic medical journal.