Beyond the hashtag: describing and understanding the full impact of the #BJSConnect tweet chat May 2019.
Journal
BJS open
ISSN: 2474-9842
Titre abrégé: BJS Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101722685
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 03 2021
05 03 2021
Historique:
received:
20
12
2019
revised:
20
08
2020
accepted:
08
09
2020
entrez:
10
3
2021
pubmed:
11
3
2021
medline:
19
3
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Twitter engagement between surgeons provides opportunities for international discussion of research and clinical practice. Understanding how surgical tweet chats work is important at a time when increasing reliance is being placed on virtual engagement because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Individual tweets from the May 2019 #BJSConnect tweet chat were extracted using NodeXL, complemented by Twitter searches in an internet browser to identify responses that had not used the hashtag. Aggregate estimates of tweet views were obtained from a third-party social media tool (Twitonomy) and compared with official Twitter Analytics measurements. In total 37 Twitter accounts posted 248 tweets or replies relating to the tweet chat. A further 110 accounts disseminated the tweets via retweeting. Only 58.5 per cent of these tweets and 35 per cent of the tweeters were identified through a search for the #BJSConnect hashtag. The rest were identified by searching for replies (61), quoting tweets (20), and posts by @BJSurgery that used the hashtag but did not appear in the Twitter search (22). Studying all tweets revealed complex branching discussions that went beyond the discussed paper's findings. Third-party estimates of potential reach of the tweet chat were greatly exaggerated. Understanding the extent of the discussion generated by the #BJSConnect tweet chat required looking beyond the hashtag to identify replies and other responses, which was time-consuming. Estimates of reach using a third-party tool were unreliable.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Twitter engagement between surgeons provides opportunities for international discussion of research and clinical practice. Understanding how surgical tweet chats work is important at a time when increasing reliance is being placed on virtual engagement because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
METHODS
Individual tweets from the May 2019 #BJSConnect tweet chat were extracted using NodeXL, complemented by Twitter searches in an internet browser to identify responses that had not used the hashtag. Aggregate estimates of tweet views were obtained from a third-party social media tool (Twitonomy) and compared with official Twitter Analytics measurements.
RESULTS
In total 37 Twitter accounts posted 248 tweets or replies relating to the tweet chat. A further 110 accounts disseminated the tweets via retweeting. Only 58.5 per cent of these tweets and 35 per cent of the tweeters were identified through a search for the #BJSConnect hashtag. The rest were identified by searching for replies (61), quoting tweets (20), and posts by @BJSurgery that used the hashtag but did not appear in the Twitter search (22). Studying all tweets revealed complex branching discussions that went beyond the discussed paper's findings. Third-party estimates of potential reach of the tweet chat were greatly exaggerated.
CONCLUSION
Understanding the extent of the discussion generated by the #BJSConnect tweet chat required looking beyond the hashtag to identify replies and other responses, which was time-consuming. Estimates of reach using a third-party tool were unreliable.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33688941
pii: 6032356
doi: 10.1093/bjsopen/zraa019
pmc: PMC7799300
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd.
Références
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019 Feb;45(2):284-289
pubmed: 30503047
J Public Health (Oxf). 2018 Jun 1;40(2):e189-e194
pubmed: 28591807
Br J Surg. 2019 Jul;106(8):1012-1018
pubmed: 31115918
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019 Feb;45(2):292-295
pubmed: 30343997
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2020 Jul;46(7):1377-1383
pubmed: 32127248
Clin Cardiol. 2020 Sep;43(9):944-948
pubmed: 32618358