Nicholas Davies1, Declan G Murphy2, Simon van Rij2, Henry H Woo3, Nathan Lawrentschuk2,4,5. 1. Royal Hobart Hospital, Hobart, Tas, Australia. 2. Division of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Vic., Australia. 3. Sydney Adventist Hospital Clinical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 4. Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Vic., Australia. 5. Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, Vic., Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the online and social media presence of all practising Australian and New Zealand urologists. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In July 2014, all active members of the Urological Society of Australia and New Zealand (USANZ) were identified. A comprehensive search of Google and each social media platform (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and YouTube) was undertaken for each urologist to identify any private websites or social media profiles. RESULTS: Of the 435 urologists currently practising in Australia and New Zealand, 305 (70.1%) have an easily identifiable social media account. LinkedIn (51.3%) is the most commonly used form of social media followed by Twitter (33.3%) and private Facebook (30.1%) accounts. About half (49.8%) have a private business website. The average number of social media accounts per urologist is 1.42 and 16 urologists (3.7%) have an account with all searched social media platforms. Over half of those with a Twitter account (55.9%) follow a dedicated urology journal club and have a median (range) number of 'followers' of 12 (1-2 862). Social media users had a median (range) of 2 (0-8 717) 'tweets' on Twitter, 2 (1-45) LinkedIn posts and 1 (1-14) YouTube video. CONCLUSION: This study represents a unique dataset not relying on selection or recall bias but using data freely available to patients and colleagues to gauge social media presence of urologists. Most Australian and New Zealand urologists have a readily identifiable online and social media presence, with widespread and consistent use across both countries.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the online and social media presence of all practising Australian and New Zealand urologists. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In July 2014, all active members of the Urological Society of Australia and New Zealand (USANZ) were identified. A comprehensive search of Google and each social media platform (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and YouTube) was undertaken for each urologist to identify any private websites or social media profiles. RESULTS: Of the 435 urologists currently practising in Australia and New Zealand, 305 (70.1%) have an easily identifiable social media account. LinkedIn (51.3%) is the most commonly used form of social media followed by Twitter (33.3%) and private Facebook (30.1%) accounts. About half (49.8%) have a private business website. The average number of social media accounts per urologist is 1.42 and 16 urologists (3.7%) have an account with all searched social media platforms. Over half of those with a Twitter account (55.9%) follow a dedicated urology journal club and have a median (range) number of 'followers' of 12 (1-2 862). Social media users had a median (range) of 2 (0-8 717) 'tweets' on Twitter, 2 (1-45) LinkedIn posts and 1 (1-14) YouTube video. CONCLUSION: This study represents a unique dataset not relying on selection or recall bias but using data freely available to patients and colleagues to gauge social media presence of urologists. Most Australian and New Zealand urologists have a readily identifiable online and social media presence, with widespread and consistent use across both countries.
Authors: Johannes Salem; Hendrik Borgmann; Martin Baunacke; Katharina Boehm; Julian Hanske; Andrew Macneily; Christian Meyer; Tim Nestler; Marianne Schmid; Johannes Huber Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 1.862
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: Johannes Salem; Hendrik Borgmann; Matthew Bultitude; Hans-Martin Fritsche; Axel Haferkamp; Axel Heidenreich; Arkadiusz Miernik; Andreas Neisius; Thomas Knoll; Christian Thomas; Igor Tsaur Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-08-18 Impact factor: 3.240