Hendrik Borgmann1, Sasha DeWitt2, Igor Tsaur1, Axel Haferkamp1, Stacy Loeb1. 1. Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany; 2. Department of Urology and Population Health, New York University and Manhattan Veterans Affairs Medical Center, New York, NY;
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Twitter use has grown exponentially within the urological community. We aimed to determine the perceptions of the impact of Twitter on users' clinical practice, research, and other professional activities. METHODS: We performed an 11-item online survey of Twitter contributors during two major urological meetings: the European Association of Urology (EAU) and the American Urological Association (AUA) annual meetings. During the EAU 2014 meeting, we distributed the survey via the meeting official Twitter feed. During the AUA 2014 meeting, we applied a new method by directly sending the survey to Twitter contributors. We performed a subset analysis for assessing the perceived impact of Twitter on the clinical practice of physicians. RESULTS: Among 312 total respondents, the greatest perceived benefits of Twitter among users were for networking (97%) and disseminating information (96%), followed by research (75%), advocacy (74%) and career development (62%). In total, 65% of Twitter users have dealt with guidelines on online medical professionalism and 71% of physician users found that Twitter had an impact on their clinical practice, and 33% had made a clinical decision based on an online case discussion. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that Twitter users in the urological community perceive important benefits. These benefits extend to multiple professional domains, particularly networking, disseminating information, remote conference participation, research, and advocacy. This is the first study that has been disseminated to targeted individuals from the urological community directly through tweets, providing a proof of principle for this research method.
INTRODUCTION: Twitter use has grown exponentially within the urological community. We aimed to determine the perceptions of the impact of Twitter on users' clinical practice, research, and other professional activities. METHODS: We performed an 11-item online survey of Twitter contributors during two major urological meetings: the European Association of Urology (EAU) and the American Urological Association (AUA) annual meetings. During the EAU 2014 meeting, we distributed the survey via the meeting official Twitter feed. During the AUA 2014 meeting, we applied a new method by directly sending the survey to Twitter contributors. We performed a subset analysis for assessing the perceived impact of Twitter on the clinical practice of physicians. RESULTS: Among 312 total respondents, the greatest perceived benefits of Twitter among users were for networking (97%) and disseminating information (96%), followed by research (75%), advocacy (74%) and career development (62%). In total, 65% of Twitter users have dealt with guidelines on online medical professionalism and 71% of physician users found that Twitter had an impact on their clinical practice, and 33% had made a clinical decision based on an online case discussion. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that Twitter users in the urological community perceive important benefits. These benefits extend to multiple professional domains, particularly networking, disseminating information, remote conference participation, research, and advocacy. This is the first study that has been disseminated to targeted individuals from the urological community directly through tweets, providing a proof of principle for this research method.
Authors: Noah E Canvasser; Christina Ramo; Todd M Morgan; Kai Zheng; Brent K Hollenbeck; Khurshid R Ghani Journal: J Endourol Date: 2014-10-23 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Morgan Rouprêt; Todd M Morgan; Peter J Bostrom; Matthew R Cooperberg; Alexander Kutikov; Kate D Linton; Joan Palou; Luis Martínez-Piñeiro; Henk van der Poel; Carl Wijburg; Andrew Winterbottom; Henry H Woo; Manfred P Wirth; James W F Catto Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-07-16 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Sarah E Wilkinson; Marnique Y Basto; Greta Perovic; Nathan Lawrentschuk; Declan G Murphy Journal: BJU Int Date: 2015-01-26 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Isaac A Thangasamy; Michael Leveridge; Benjamin J Davies; Antonio Finelli; Brian Stork; Henry H Woo Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-02-07 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Declan G Murphy; Stacy Loeb; Marnique Y Basto; Benjamin Challacombe; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Mike Leveridge; Todd Morgan; Prokar Dasgupta; Matthew Bultitude Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 5.588
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: 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: 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: Katelyn G Bennett; Nicholas L Berlin; Mark P MacEachern; Steven R Buchman; B Aviva Preminger; Christian J Vercler Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Tai Kyung Hairston; Anne R Links; Vandra Harris; David E Tunkel; Jonathan Walsh; Mary Catherine Beach; Emily F Boss Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 6.223