How scientists and physicians use Twitter during a medical congress
MetadataShow full item record
Altmetrics Handle Statistics
Altmetrics DOI Statistics
OBJECTIVES: During medical congresses Twitter allows discussions to disseminate beyond the congress hall and reach a wider audience. Insights into the dynamics of social media interactions during congresses, dissemination of scientific information and the determinants of a successful tweet may allow us to better understand social media's role in science communication. METHODS: We retrospectively extracted social media data during the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ECCMID) 2017 and 2018 using NodeXL. We compared social media activity during these two congresses. Subsequently, we conducted in-depth analyses to identify the components of a successful tweet and multivariable analysis to assess independent factors associated with retweet activity. RESULTS: In 2018, approximately 13,000 delegates attended ECCMID, but only 591 Twitter accounts actively tweeted about the congress. Although fewer tweets were posted in 2018 compared to 2017 (4,213 vs 4,657, respectively), ECCMID2018 generated a 63% increase in the total number of retweets (p <0.001). According to multivariable logistic regression analysis, using multimedia, URL or hashtags and mentioning other Twitter account(s) were independently associated with retweet success. Mentioning of other users and use of multimedia were the only consistent predictors of retweets irrespective of the number of followers. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial increase in retweet activity and a modest increase in the number of influential Twitter accounts were observed between two successive congresses. Dissemination of scientific messages is more successful when connected accounts are actively involved in social media activity, and social media posts constitute the right combination of components.
Cevik , M , Ong , D S Y & Mackenzie , G 2019 , ' How scientists and physicians use Twitter during a medical congress ' , Clinical Microbiology and Infection , vol. 25 , no. 12 , pp. 1561.e7-1561.e12 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2019.04.030
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
© 2019 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. This work has been made available online in accordance with publisher policies or with permission from the rights holder. Permissions for further reuse of this content should be sought from the rights holder. This is the author created accepted manuscript following peer review and may differ slightly from the final published version. The published version should be used for citation purposes. The final published version of this work is available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2019.04.030
Items in the St Andrews Research Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.