MP20-19 SHARED DISCUSSION OR SELF-PROMOTION? USE OF TWITTER BY U.S. UROLOGY RESIDENCY PROGRAMS

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologySurgical Technology & Simulation: Training & Skills Assessment II1 Apr 2016MP20-19 SHARED DISCUSSION OR SELF-PROMOTION? USE OF TWITTER BY U.S. UROLOGY RESIDENCY PROGRAMS Kevin Koo and E. Ann Gormley Kevin KooKevin Koo More articles by this author and E. Ann GormleyE. Ann Gormley More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.02.2788AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Social media use by urological organizations is increasing. Twitter has become a popular means of disseminating research findings and communicating at conferences. Engagement on Twitter by academic urology programs is now emerging, but its use and impact are less well characterized. METHODS Twitter was queried with the names of all U.S. allopathic urology training programs and directors. Accounts not belonging specifically to the program or department, or that had not ever posted, were excluded. Program directors' (PD) accounts were identified based on names, photos, and content relevance. For each program, the Klout Score, a measure of influence akin to journal impact factors, was assessed, and a 1-month sample of content from each program was reviewed. A subgroup analysis was performed between programs with higher vs lower Twitter impact. RESULTS Of 123 programs, 35 (28.5%) had Twitter profiles and 24 (19.5%) had been active within 14 days. Median account age was 18 months. Mean (range) number of Tweets, followers, and friends (accounts followed by program) was 227 (1-1697) Tweets, 164 (4-661) followers, and 288 (8-1724) friends. Among active accounts, mean posting frequency was 15 Tweets/month. The median (range) Klout score was 28 (1-46). Of 123 PDs, 22 (17.9%) had identifiable profiles. Programs with PDs on Twitter were more likely to have profiles (p<0.05). The 10 highest-impact programs on Twitter are summarized in the Table. In the content analysis, 395 Tweets were posted by 27 programs. Tweets were grouped into 10 categories (% of Tweets): conferences (23%), recognition of faculty/residents (16%), event announcements (16%), research external (13%) or internal (9%) to the program, clinical advice for the public (8%), recognition of external people/programs (6%), residency information (3%), clinical services offered (2%), and other (4%). High-impact accounts posted more about their own research (11% vs 5%), conference participation (27% vs 15%), and internal recognition (17% vs 13%). Account age did not predict impact. CONCLUSIONS Despite relatively low participation by urology programs, programs are using Twitter effectively to highlight scholarship, engage at conferences, and offer advice to the public. Account age was not related to impact, suggesting ease of engagement for programs not yet on Twitter. © 2016FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 195Issue 4SApril 2016Page: e220-e221 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2016MetricsAuthor Information Kevin Koo More articles by this author E. Ann Gormley More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...