Advertisement

The effect of social media (#SoMe) on journal impact factor and parental awareness in paediatric urology

      Summary

      Background

      Social media (SoMe) comprises a number of internet-based applications that have the capability to disseminate multimodal media and allow for unprecedented inter-user connectivity. The role of Twitter has been studied in conferences and education; moreover, there is increasing evidence that patients are more likely to use social media for their own health education.

      Objective

      The aim of this study was to assess the impact of social media platforms on the impact factor of both urological and paediatric journals that publish on paediatric urology, and to assess parental awareness of social media in paediatric urology.

      Study design

      A filtered Journal of Citation Reports (JCR) search was performed for the period 2012–16 for journals that published articles on paediatric urology. Journals were ranked according to impact factor, and each individual journal website was accessed to assess for the presence of social media. Parents in paediatric urology clinics and non-paediatric urology patients also filled out a questionnaire to assess for awareness and attitudes to social media. All statistical analysis was performed using Prism 6 software (Prism 6, GraphPad Software, California, USA).

      Results

      Overall, there were 50 urological journals and 39 paediatric journals with a mean impact factor of 2.303 and 1.766, respectively. There was an overall average increase in impact factor across all urological journals between 2012 and 16. The presence of a Twitter feed was statistically significant for a rise in impact factor over the 4 years (P = 0.017). The cohort of parents was statistically more likely to have completed post-secondary education, to have and access to a social media profile, use it for health education, and use it to access journal/physician/hospital social media accounts.

      Discussion

      This study examined, for the first time, the role of social media in paediatric urology, and demonstrated that SoMe use is associated with a positive influence in impact factor, but also a parental appetite for it. Limitations included a non-externally validated questionnaire. There may also have been bias in larger journals that generate and maintain social media platforms such as Twitter, which may then in turn have an influence on impact factor.

      Conclusions

      Image 1

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Pediatric Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

      1. Facebook. Facebook Reports Second Quarter 2016 Results, https://investor.fb.com/investor-news/press-release-details/2016/Facebook-Reports-Second-Quarter-2016-Results/default.aspx [last accessed 09.08.16].

      2. Twitter Inc, https://about.Twitter.com/company [last accessed August 2016].

        • Nason G.J.
        • O'Kelly F.
        • Kelly M.E.
        • Phelan N.
        • Manecksha R.P.
        • Lawrentschuk N.
        • et al.
        The emerging use of Twitter by urological journals.
        BJU Int. 2015; 115: 486-490
        • Wilkinson S.E.
        • Basto M.Y.
        • Perovic G.
        • Lawrentschuk N.
        • Murphy D.G.
        The social media revolution is changing the conference experience: analytics and trends from eight international meetings.
        BJU Int. 2015; 115: 839-846
        • Matta R.
        • Doiron C.
        • Leveridge M.J.
        The dramatic increase in social media in urology.
        J Urol. 2014; 192: 494-498
        • Borgmann H.
        • Woelm J.-H.
        • Merseburger A.
        • Nestler T.
        • Salem J.
        • Brandt M.P.
        • et al.
        Qualitative Twitter analysis of participants, tweet strategies, and tweet content at a major urologic conference.
        Can Urol Assoc J. 2016; 10: 39-44
        • Thangasamy I.A.
        • Leveridge M.
        • Davies B.J.
        • Finelli A.
        • Stork B.
        • Woo H.H.
        International urology journal club via Twitter: 12-month experience.
        Eur Urol. 2014; 66: 112-117
        • Loeb S.
        • Bayne C.E.
        • Frey C.
        • Davies B.J.
        • Averch T.D.
        • Woo H.H.
        • et al.
        Use of social media in urology: data from the American Urological Association (AUA).
        BJU Int. 2014; 113: 993-998
        • Fuoco M.
        • Leveridge M.J.
        Early adopters or laggards? Attitudes toward and use of social media among urologists.
        BJU Int. 2015; 115: 491-497
        • Leveridge M.J.
        The emerging role of social media in urology.
        Rev Urol. 2014; 16: 110-117
        • Fox S.
        • Duggan M.
        Health Online.
        Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project, 2013 ([last accessed 09.08.16])
        • Sood A.
        • Sarangi S.
        • Pandey A.
        • Murugiah K.
        YouTube as a source of information on kidney stone disease.
        Urology. 2011; 277: 558-562
        • Nason G.J.
        • Tareen F.
        • Quinn F.
        Hydrocele on the web: an evaluation of internet-based information.
        Scand J Urol. 2013; 47: 152-157
        • Journal Citation Reports
        Journal of Citation Reports.
        2016 (Available at:) ([last accessed 09.08.16])
        • Lubowitz J.H.
        • Provencher M.T.
        • Poehling G.G.
        Follow us on Twitter.
        Arthroscopy. 2012; 28: 1747-1748
        • Cosco T.D.
        Medical journals, impact and social media: an ecological study of the Twittersphere.
        CMAJ. 2015; 187: 1353-1357
        • Eysenbach G.
        Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact.
        J Med Internet Res. 2011; 13: e123
        • Scotti V.
        • De Silvestri A.
        • Scudeller L.
        • Abele P.
        • Topuz F.
        • Curti M.
        Novel bibliometric scores for evaluating research quality and output: a correlation study with established indexes.
        Int J Biol Markers. 2016; 8 ([Epub ahead of print])https://doi.org/10.5301/jbm.5000217
        • Cardona-Grau D.
        • Sorokin I.
        • Leinwand G.
        • Welliver C.
        Introducing the Twitter impact factor: an objective measure of urology's academic impact on Twitter.
        Eur Urol Focus. 2016;
        • Wasserman M.I.
        • Baxter N.N.
        • Rosen B.
        • Burnstein M.
        • Halverson A.L.
        Systematic review of internet patient information on colorectal cancer surgery.
        Dis Colon Rectum. 2014; 57: 64-69https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000000011
        • Borgmann H.
        • Mager R.
        • Salem J.
        • Bründl J.
        • Kunath F.
        • Thomas C.
        • et al.
        Robotic prostatectomy on the web: a cross-sectional qualitative assessment.
        Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2016; 14: e355-e362
        • Farhat N.
        • Zoeller C.
        • Petersen C.
        • Ure B.
        Internet presentation of departments of pediatric surgery in Germany and their compliance with recommended criteria for promoting services and offering professional information for patients.
        Eur J Pediatr Surg. 2016; 26: 344-348
        • Gill B.C.
        • Ericson K.J.
        • Hemal S.
        • Babbar P.
        • Shoskes D.A.
        The digital footprint of academic urologists: where do we stand?.
        Urology. 2016; 90: 27-31
        • Huerta T.R.I.
        • Hefner J.L.
        • Ford E.W.
        • McAlearney A.S.
        • Menachemi N.
        Hospital website rankings in the United States: expanding benchmarks and standards for effective consumer engagement.
        J Med Internet Res. 2014; 16: e64
        • Hand F.
        • McDowell D.T.
        • Glynn R.W.
        • Rowley H.
        • Mortell A.
        Patterns of internet use by parents of children attending a pediatric surgical service.
        Pediatr Surg Int. 2013; 29: 729-733
        • Murphy D.G.
        • Loeb S.
        • Basto M.Y.
        • Challacombe B.
        • Trinh Q.D.
        • Leveridge M.
        • et al.
        Engaging responsibly with social media: the BJUI guidelines.
        BJU Int. 2014; 114: 9-11
        • Farnan J.M.
        • Snyder Sulmasy L.
        • Worster B.K.
        • et al.
        Online medical professionalism: patient and public relationships: policy statement from the American College of Physicians and the Federation of State Medical Boards.
        Ann Intern Med. 2013; 158: 620-627
        • Kutikov A.
        • Woo H.W.
        • Catto J.W.
        Urology tag ontology project: standardizing social media communication descriptors.
        Eur Urol. 2016; 69: 183-185

      Linked Article