Activity, content, contributors, and influencers of the twitter discussion on urologic oncology

28Citations
Citations of this article
49Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

You May have access to this PDF.

Abstract

Objectives To analyse the activity, content, contributors, and influencers of the Twitter discussion on urologic oncology. Materials and methods We performed a comprehensive quantitative and qualitative Twitter analysis for the hashtags #prostatecancer, #bladdercancer, #kidneycancer, and #testicularcancer. Symplur was used to analyse activity over different time periods and the top influencers of the Twitter discussion. Tweet Archivist and Twitonomy analysis tools were used to assess characteristics of content and contributors. Results Twitter discussion on urologic oncology in 2014 contained 100,987 tweets created by 39,326 participants. Mean monthly tweet activity was 6,603±2,183 for #prostatecancer, 866±923 for #testicularcancer, 457±477 for #bladdercancer and 401±504 for #kidneycancer. Twitter activity increased by 41% in 2013 and by 122% in 2014. The content analysis detected awareness, cancer, and risk as frequently mentioned words in urologic oncology tweets. Prevalently used related hashtags were the general hashtag #cancer, awareness hashtags, and the respective cancer/urology tag ontology hashtags. Contributors originated from 41 countries on 6 continents and had a mean of 5,864±4,747 followers. They tweeted from platforms on exclusively mobile devices (39%) more frequently than from desktop devices (29%). Health care organizations accounted for 58% of the top influencers in all cancers. The largest proportion of physicians were among the #prostatecancer and #kidneycancer (each 9%) influencers and individual contributors were most frequent in the discussion on #kidneycancer (57%) and #testicularcancer (50%). Conclusion There is a significant and growing activity in the Twitter discussion on urologic oncology, particularly on #prostatecancer. The Twitter discussion is global, social, and mobile, and merits attention of stakeholders in health care as a promising communication tool.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Borgmann, H., Loeb, S., Salem, J., Thomas, C., Haferkamp, A., Murphy, D. G., & Tsaur, I. (2016). Activity, content, contributors, and influencers of the twitter discussion on urologic oncology. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, 34(9), 377–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2016.02.021

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free