Vinay Prabhu1, Ted Lee1, Stacy Loeb1,2,3, John H Holmes4, Heather T Gold2,3, Herbert Lepor1,3, David F Penson5, Danil V Makarov1,2,4,6,7. 1. Department of Urology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA. 2. Department of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA. 3. New York University Cancer Institute, New York, NY, USA. 4. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 5. Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USA. 6. Department of Veterans Affairs New York Harbor Healthcare System, New York, NY, USA. 7. New York University Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine public and media response to the draft (October 2011) and finalised (May 2012) recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) against prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing via Twitter, a popular social network with over 200 million active users. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a mixed-methods design to analyse posts on Twitter, known as 'tweets'. Using the search term 'prostate cancer', we archived tweets in the 24-h periods following the release of both the draft and the finalised USPSTF recommendations. We recorded tweet rate per h and developed a coding system to assess the type of user and sentiment expressed in tweets and linked articles. RESULTS: After the draft and finalised USPSTF recommendations were released, 2042 and 5357 tweets focused on the USPSTF report, respectively. The tweet rate nearly doubled within 2 h of both announcements. Fewer than 10% of tweets expressed an opinion about screening, and the majority of these were pro-screening during both periods. By contrast, anti-screening articles were tweeted more frequently in both the draft and finalised study periods. Between the draft and the finalised recommendations, the proportion of anti-screening tweets and anti-screening article links increased (P = 0.03 and P < 0.01, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: There was increased Twitter activity surrounding the USPSTF draft and finalised recommendations. The percentage of anti-screening tweets and articles appeared to increase, perhaps due to the interval public comment period. Despite this, most tweets did not express an opinion, suggesting a missed opportunity in this important arena for advocacy.
OBJECTIVE: To examine public and media response to the draft (October 2011) and finalised (May 2012) recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) against prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing via Twitter, a popular social network with over 200 million active users. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a mixed-methods design to analyse posts on Twitter, known as 'tweets'. Using the search term 'prostate cancer', we archived tweets in the 24-h periods following the release of both the draft and the finalised USPSTF recommendations. We recorded tweet rate per h and developed a coding system to assess the type of user and sentiment expressed in tweets and linked articles. RESULTS: After the draft and finalised USPSTF recommendations were released, 2042 and 5357 tweets focused on the USPSTF report, respectively. The tweet rate nearly doubled within 2 h of both announcements. Fewer than 10% of tweets expressed an opinion about screening, and the majority of these were pro-screening during both periods. By contrast, anti-screening articles were tweeted more frequently in both the draft and finalised study periods. Between the draft and the finalised recommendations, the proportion of anti-screening tweets and anti-screening article links increased (P = 0.03 and P < 0.01, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: There was increased Twitter activity surrounding the USPSTF draft and finalised recommendations. The percentage of anti-screening tweets and articles appeared to increase, perhaps due to the interval public comment period. Despite this, most tweets did not express an opinion, suggesting a missed opportunity in this important arena for advocacy.
Authors: Stacy Loeb; Christopher E Bayne; Christine Frey; Benjamin J Davies; Timothy D Averch; Henry H Woo; Brian Stork; Matthew R Cooperberg; Scott E Eggener Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Dominic King; Daniel Ramirez-Cano; Felix Greaves; Ivo Vlaev; Steve Beales; Ara Darzi Journal: Health Policy Date: 2013-03-13 Impact factor: 2.980
Authors: Peter Sheridan Dodds; Kameron Decker Harris; Isabel M Kloumann; Catherine A Bliss; Christopher M Danforth Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-12-07 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Anthony Nastasi; Tyler Bryant; Joseph K Canner; Mark Dredze; Melissa S Camp; Neeraja Nagarajan Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: J P Struck; F Siegel; M W Kramer; I Tsaur; A Heidenreich; A Haferkamp; A S Merseburger; J Salem; H Borgmann Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-03-09 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Stacey A Fedewa; Ted Gansler; Robert Smith; Ann Goding Sauer; Richard Wender; Otis W Brawley; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Don S Dizon; Mina S Sedrak; Mark A Lewis; Elise Cook; Michael J Fisch; Jennifer R Klemp; Jonathan Sommers; AnneMarie Ciccarella; Julie Gralow; Wendy Lawton; Craig Nichols Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2018-12
Authors: Hendrik Borgmann; Jan-Henning Woelm; Axel Merseburger; Tim Nestler; Johannes Salem; Maximilian P Brandt; Axel Haferkamp; Stacy Loeb Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2016 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Songhua Xu; Christopher Markson; Kaitlin L Costello; Cathleen Y Xing; Kitaw Demissie; Adana Am Llanos Journal: JMIR Public Health Surveill Date: 2016-04-28