MP20-20 EVALUATION OF GLOBAL CONTINENTAL UROLOGY RESIDENCY TRAINING PROGRAMS: DISCREPANCIES AND PERCEIVED RESIDENT COMPETENCIES

Abstract

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.