Back

Social media at metabolic meetings: who is tweeting what and for whom?

Nurse, J. H.

2022-08-16 scientific communication and education
10.1101/2022.08.16.504099 bioRxiv
Show abstract

BACKGROUNDThe social media site Twitter has been widely embraced in medical circles for its ability to connect individuals and support rapid information sharing. Critics say that the messages shared may not accurately reflect what was said and that sharing meeting content could devalue conferences themselves. It is unclear how it is used at SSIEM and what value it may bring. METHODSTwitters tweetdeck software was used to find all tweets containing the conference hashtag #SSIEM2018. All tweets were reviewed to identify the author, see what had been shared and count replies, likes and retweets. Authors were grouped by professional background and tweet content was broken down by type of material shared and theme. RESULTS122 relevant tweets were sent during the fortnight at the beginning of September 2018, creating over 400,000 impressions. There were a further 73 replies with approximately 13 engagements (likes, replies or retweets) per tweet. 36 people wrote tweets (rate: 3.4 per person [1-33]). One quarter of the tweets shared poster content and over one third of tweets related to Phenylketonuria materials. 50 of the tweets were produced by just two accounts, both intended to provide information to patients and their families. DISCUSSIONTweets where no hashtag was used cannot be identified and restrictions within Twitter prevent certain analyses on tweet data greater than 30 days old. However, Twitter uptake within metabolic medicine is significantly behind other specialities where conference tweets can exceed 20,000. Information shared is typically intended for patients rather than other health professionals; this suggests a different uptake to more mainstream specialities. Presenting teams should be aware that their work may be received directly by patients and families and consider how best to present their messages for all who may receive them.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
19.9%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 12%
14.7%
3
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.7%
4
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
8.6%
50% of probability mass above
5
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 4%
4.4%
6
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
7
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 6%
2.1%
8
British Journal of General Practice
22 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.9%
9
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
10
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.4%
11
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.4%
12
FEBS Open Bio
29 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.3%
13
FASEB BioAdvances
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.3%
14
Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.3%
15
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
16
The FEBS Journal
78 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
17
BioData Mining
15 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.0%
18
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
19
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
20
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 70%
0.9%
21
Emergency Medicine Journal
20 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
22
Human Mutation
29 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
23
BMC Neurology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
24
Journal of Personalized Medicine
28 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.8%
25
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 19%
0.5%
26
Pilot and Feasibility Studies
12 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.5%