benchmarking twitter hashtag usage at medical …...radian6 (salesforce.com, san francisco, ca);...

1
BENCHMARKING TWITTER HASHTAG USAGE AT MEDICAL CONFERENCES S Palmisano, A Miller, T Parker, P Farmer MedThink SciCom, Inc, Raleigh, NC INTRODUCTION • Twitter is a microblogging social network service with approximately 175 million registered users It is available in over 20 different languages and can be accessed on most internet compatible devices (eg, computers, smart phones, tablets) It provides real-time information and opinions regarding topics of interest defined by the users Users specify the topics or people about which they wish to receive information by electing to “follow” them • At medical conferences, use of Twitter hashtags provides an avenue for attendees to follow conference news and commentary • Medical professionals attending conferences may use Twitter to Disseminate high-value data to colleagues in real-time Notify colleagues about interesting presentations at the conference Discover and interact with colleagues who have similar interests Commend colleagues by tweeting or retweeting about their work Evaluate the acceptance or popularity of data or conclusions • Considering the ways in which communication of scientific information is evolving, it is incumbent upon medical publication professionals to be aware of how social media channels are affecting the publication landscape • Although Twitter has increased in popularity over time, the use of Twitter hashtags at medical conferences has not been investigated OBJECTIVES • To evaluate the use of conference-associated Twitter hashtags at medical conferences, thereby providing a benchmark for future assessments of Twitter usage METHODS • Conference Authority (Sylogent, Newtown, PA) was used to identify the top global medical conferences (by attendance) in 2011 for 4 major therapeutic specialities (ie, oncology/hematology, cardiology/vascular diseases, gastroenterology/hepatology, and general medicine) • Hashtags for each conference were identified Hashtags were unavailable for 2 of the major medical conferences (ie, Japanese Circulation Society and Primary Care Conference). Therefore, inclusion was expanded in the areas of cardiology/vascular diseases and general medicine so that all speciality areas contained 5 conferences that used conference-associated hashtags • Twitter activity (ie, the number of tweets associated with a conference-specific hashtag) was assessed for the duration of each conference using Radian6 (Salesforce.com, San Francisco, CA) • Tweet and retweet volume and total reach (ie, number of people who received tweets or retweets) were recorded RESULTS • 91% of the “top” medical conferences initially identified with Conference Authority had Twitter hashtags (Table) • For the top 5 conferences with conference-specific Twitter hashtags in each speciality area,Twitter volume was greatest for the oncology/hematology field (Figure 1) • Oncology/Hematology conferences had at least 4 times as many tweets per attendee (mean, 1 tweet per 7 attendees) than other speciality conferences American Association for Cancer Research (1 tweet per 4 attendees), American Heart Association (1 tweet per 14 attendees), Digestive Disease Week (1 tweet per 16 attendees), and American Academy of Physician Assistants (1 tweet per 12 attendees) had the greatest mean number of hashtag-associated tweets per conference attendee at the oncology/hematology, cardiology/vascular diseases, gastroenterology/hepatology, and general medicine conferences, respectively • Conferences in the United States had a greater mean number of hashtag-associated tweets than conferences outside of the United States (1457.3 vs 515.2, respectively) • Overall, retweets accounted for only 30% of total hashtag-associated tweet volume at medical conferences Oncology/Hematology (37%) and cardiology/vascular diseases (33%) conferences had a greater percentage of retweets than general medicine (27%) and gastroenterology/hepatology (24%) conferences • Total reach (ie, the number of Twitter users who received a conference-specific hashtag-associated tweet or retweet) was greatest for oncology/hematology and cardiology/vascular diseases conferences (Figure 2) • Conference attendance and total reach were not linearly associated overall (R ² =0.4463; Figure 3A) • A linear relationship between total reach and conference attendance was observed for oncology/hematology conferences (R ²=0.8622; Figure 3B) but not for cardiology/vascular diseases (R ²=0.2211), gastroenterology/ hepatology (R ²=0.3217), or general medicine (R ²=0.523) conferences The correlation between total reach and conference attendance observed in oncology/hematology conferences may be attributable to the rapid exchange of information generally seen in this speciality area CONCLUSIONS • Twitter is recognized as a unique and valuable tool by conference attendees • The utility of hashtag-associated tweets may vary with therapeutic speciality (eg oncology/hematology), and there may be greater adoption of Twitter by conferences held within the US (ie, the birthplace of Twitter) • Conference attendance was not predictive of conference-associated tweeting, suggesting that other factors, such as advocacy group interest and tendency toward rapid dissemination of data (both attributes of the oncology field), may offer predictive value • The majority of hashtag-associated tweets were original (ie, not retweets), implying that discussion and interaction, not just dissemination of information, occurs at medical conferences ABSTRACT Objective: The microblogging service Twitter uses a hashtag to mark keywords or topics in a tweet. Hashtags traditionally are utilized at medical conferences to allow Twitter users to follow conference news and commentary. No benchmarks, standards, or “amplification factor” exist for the use of hashtags at medical conferences. This analysis intends to benchmark the use of Twitter hashtags at medical conferences to facilitate future comparisons. Research design and methods: Conference Authority (Sylogent, Newtown, PA) was used to identify the top medical conferences by attendance in 2011 for 4 major therapeutic categories (general medicine, oncology, gastroenterology, and cardiology). Twitter activity for the duration of each conference was assessed using Radian6 (Salesforce.com, San Francisco, CA); tweet/retweet volume and total reach were recorded. Results: Hashtags were utilized at 90% of the medical conferences. For the top 5 conferences with hashtags, hashtag usage was highest for oncology (mean, 3279 vs 758 for cardiology, 331 for gastroenterology, and 329 for general medicine). Retweets accounted for approximately 30% of hashtag volume, extending the reach of the initial communication. Conferences in the United States had greater hashtag volume (mean, 1457) than non-US conferences (mean, 515). In oncology, a linear relationship between hashtag volume and conference attendance was observed (R ²=0.86). Conclusions: Of the 4 therapeutic categories analyzed, oncology conferences had the greatest total hashtag volume, potentially increasing audience reach and providing valuable information for publication professionals. Future analyses will assess changes in Twitter usage and examine practical applications for publication professionals. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLICATION PROFESSIONALS • Twitter is recognized by medical conferences as an important means of disseminating information and is being used by conference attendees to engage in discussions; thus, monitoring Twitter activity may provide medical publication professionals with unique insights including Suggestion of topics that should be addressed more fully in a subsequent publication (eg, safety concerns) Areas for future analyses Identification of medical professionals with an interest or expertise in a specific area • Future analyses should assess changes in Twitter usage and examine practical applications for publication professionals (eg, use as a metric for assessment of data dissemination) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors are employees of MedThink SciCom, Inc, and have no financial interests in the outcome of the study. All authors contributed to the research and writing of the poster. Additional contributors included Ginny Boland for research design and implementation and Jillian Gee for writing expertise. The authors would like to thank Christina Cartwright for editorial support and Loftin Barnes for assistance in the preparation of the poster graphics. Data have been revised since the abstract was submitted. Table. Major Conferences Identified by Speciality Field Conference Conference attendees in 2011, n Conference-associated hashtag Oncology/Hematology ASCO ASH AACR ECCO/ESMO a ASTRO 32,500 18,000 17,500 15,000 11,500 #ASCO11 #ASH11 #AACR #emcc2011 #ASTRO11 Cardiology/Vascular diseases ESC a AHA ACC JCS a HRS EuroPCR a 32,500 23,500 20,000 17,850 13,500 12,750 #ESCparis2011 #AHA11 #ACC11 None #HRS2011 #insidepcr Gastroenterology/Hepatology DDW UEGW a EASL a AASLD ACG 16,500 14,000 8250 8000 4500 #DDW11 #UEGW #ILC11 #LiverMeeting #acg2011 General medicine OMED ACP AAPA PCC a NMA Wonca Europe a 10,000 9500 9000 5000-6000 4500 3750 #OMED2011 #im11 #AAPAImpact None #nma2011 #WONCA AACR, American Association for Cancer Research; AAPA, American Academy of Physician Assistants; AASLD, American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases; ACC, American College of Cardiology; ACG, American College of Gastroenterology; ACP, American College of Physicians; AHA, American Heart Association; ASCO, American Society of Clinical Oncology; ASH, American Society of Hematology; ASTRO, American Society for Radiation Oncology; DDW, Digestive Disease Week; EASL, European Association for the Study of the Liver; ECCO/ESMO, European Cancer Organisation/European Society for Medical Oncology; ESC, European Society of Cardiology; EuroPCR, European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Intervention; HRS, Heart Rhythm Society; JCS, Japanese Circulation Society; NMA, National Medical Association; OMED, Osteopathic Medical Conference & Exposition; PCC, Primary Care Conference; UEGW, United European Gastroenterology Federation; Wonca Europe, World Organization of National Colleges, Academies and Academic Associations of General Practitioners/Family Physicians, European branch. a International conference. Figure 3. Relationship between conference attendance and total hashtag-associated tweet reach from (A) all medical conferences evaluated (N=20) and (B) oncology conferences (n=5). AACR, American Association for Cancer Research; ASCO, American Society of Clinical Oncology; ASH, American Society of Hematology; ASTRO, American Society for Radiation Oncology; ECCO/ESMO, European Cancer Organisation/European Society for Medical Oncology. 35 A 30 R 2 =0.4463 25 Attendance, thousands 20 15 10 5 0 0 2 4 6 8 Total reach, millions 10 12 14 16 35 B 30 R 2 =0.8622 ASTRO ECCO/ESMO ASH AACR ASCO 25 Attendance, thousands 20 15 10 5 0 0 2 4 6 8 Total reach, millions 10 12 14 16 POSTER NUMBER 25 Scan with QR code reader to obtain a PDF of this poster and hear more from one of the authors. Figure 1. Overall tweet volume by conference speciality. 3500 3280 758 331 329 3000 2500 Hashtag-associated tweets, mean, n 2000 1500 1000 500 Oncology/ Hematology (n=5) Cardiology/ Vascular diseases (n=5) Gastroenterology/ Hepatology (n=5) General medicine (n=5) 0 Does increased tweet volume suggest a more rapid dissemination mindset? Figure 2. Total number of Twitter users who received a conference-associated tweet directly or through retweeting (ie, total reach) by conference speciality. 7 5.9 3.2 0.3 0.3 6 5 Total reach, mean, millions 4 3 2 1 Oncology/ Hematology (n=5) Cardiology/ Vascular diseases (n=5) Gastroenterology/ Hepatology (n=5) General medicine (n=5) 0 Why would oncology/hematology and cardiology/vascular diseases attendees appear to be more engaged? 8th Annual Meeting of ISMPP • April 23-25, 2012 • Baltimore, MD

Upload: others

Post on 18-Mar-2020

18 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: BENCHMARKING TWITTER HASHTAG USAGE AT MEDICAL …...Radian6 (Salesforce.com, San Francisco, CA); tweet/retweet volume and total reach were recorded. Results: Hashtags were utilized

BENCHMARKING TWITTER HASHTAG USAGE AT MEDICAL CONFERENCESS Palmisano, A Miller, T Parker, P Farmer

MedThink SciCom, Inc, Raleigh, NC

INTRODUCTION• Twitterisamicrobloggingsocialnetworkservicewithapproximately175millionregisteredusers

– Itisavailableinover20differentlanguagesandcanbeaccessedonmostinternetcompatibledevices(eg,computers,smartphones,tablets)

– Itprovidesreal-timeinformationandopinionsregardingtopicsofinterestdefinedbytheusers

– Usersspecifythetopicsorpeopleaboutwhichtheywishtoreceiveinformationbyelectingto“follow”them

• Atmedicalconferences,useofTwitterhashtagsprovidesanavenueforattendeestofollowconferencenewsandcommentary

• MedicalprofessionalsattendingconferencesmayuseTwitterto– Disseminatehigh-valuedatatocolleaguesinreal-time

– Notifycolleaguesaboutinterestingpresentationsattheconference

– Discoverandinteractwithcolleagueswhohavesimilarinterests

– Commendcolleaguesbytweetingorretweetingabouttheirwork

– Evaluatetheacceptanceorpopularityofdataorconclusions

• Consideringthewaysinwhichcommunicationofscientificinformationisevolving,itisincumbentuponmedicalpublicationprofessionalstobeawareofhowsocialmediachannelsareaffectingthepublicationlandscape

• AlthoughTwitterhasincreasedinpopularityovertime,theuseofTwitterhashtagsatmedicalconferenceshasnotbeeninvestigated

OBJECTIVES• Toevaluatetheuseofconference-associatedTwitterhashtagsatmedicalconferences,therebyprovidinga

benchmarkforfutureassessmentsofTwitterusage

METHODS • ConferenceAuthority(Sylogent,Newtown,PA)wasusedtoidentifythetopglobalmedicalconferences(by

attendance)in2011for4majortherapeuticspecialities(ie,oncology/hematology,cardiology/vasculardiseases,gastroenterology/hepatology,andgeneralmedicine)

• Hashtagsforeachconferencewereidentified– Hashtagswereunavailablefor2ofthemajormedicalconferences(ie,JapaneseCirculationSocietyandPrimaryCareConference).Therefore,inclusionwasexpandedintheareasofcardiology/vasculardiseasesandgeneralmedicinesothatallspecialityareascontained5conferencesthatusedconference-associatedhashtags

• Twitteractivity(ie,thenumberoftweetsassociatedwithaconference-specifichashtag)wasassessedforthedurationofeachconferenceusingRadian6(Salesforce.com,SanFrancisco,CA)

• Tweetandretweetvolumeandtotalreach(ie,numberofpeoplewhoreceivedtweetsorretweets)wererecorded

RESULTS• 91%ofthe“top”medicalconferencesinitiallyidentifiedwithConferenceAuthorityhadTwitterhashtags(Table)

• Forthetop5conferenceswithconference-specificTwitterhashtagsineachspecialityarea,Twittervolumewasgreatestfortheoncology/hematologyfield(Figure1)

• Oncology/Hematologyconferenceshadatleast4timesasmanytweetsperattendee(mean,1tweetper7attendees)thanotherspecialityconferences

– AmericanAssociationforCancerResearch(1tweetper4attendees),AmericanHeartAssociation(1tweetper14attendees),DigestiveDiseaseWeek(1tweetper16attendees),andAmericanAcademyofPhysicianAssistants(1tweetper12attendees)hadthegreatestmeannumberofhashtag-associatedtweetsperconferenceattendeeattheoncology/hematology,cardiology/vasculardiseases,gastroenterology/hepatology,andgeneralmedicineconferences,respectively

• ConferencesintheUnitedStateshadagreatermeannumberofhashtag-associatedtweetsthanconferencesoutsideoftheUnitedStates(1457.3vs515.2,respectively)

• Overall,retweetsaccountedforonly30%oftotalhashtag-associatedtweetvolumeatmedicalconferences– Oncology/Hematology(37%)andcardiology/vasculardiseases(33%)conferenceshadagreaterpercentageofretweetsthangeneralmedicine(27%)andgastroenterology/hepatology(24%)conferences

• Totalreach(ie,thenumberofTwitteruserswhoreceivedaconference-specifichashtag-associatedtweetorretweet)wasgreatestforoncology/hematologyandcardiology/vasculardiseasesconferences(Figure2)

• Conferenceattendanceandtotalreachwerenotlinearlyassociatedoverall(R ² =0.4463;Figure3A)

• Alinearrelationshipbetweentotalreachandconferenceattendancewasobservedforoncology/hematologyconferences(R ²=0.8622;Figure3B)butnotforcardiology/vasculardiseases(R ²=0.2211),gastroenterology/hepatology(R ²=0.3217),orgeneralmedicine(R ²=0.523)conferences

– Thecorrelationbetweentotalreachandconferenceattendanceobservedinoncology/hematologyconferencesmaybeattributabletotherapidexchangeofinformationgenerallyseeninthisspecialityarea

CONCLUSIONS• Twitterisrecognizedasauniqueandvaluabletoolbyconferenceattendees

• Theutilityofhashtag-associatedtweetsmayvarywiththerapeuticspeciality(egoncology/hematology),andtheremaybegreateradoptionofTwitterbyconferencesheldwithintheUS(ie,thebirthplaceofTwitter)

• Conferenceattendancewasnotpredictiveofconference-associatedtweeting,suggestingthatotherfactors,suchasadvocacygroupinterestandtendencytowardrapiddisseminationofdata(bothattributesoftheoncologyfield),mayofferpredictivevalue

• Themajorityofhashtag-associatedtweetswereoriginal(ie,notretweets),implyingthatdiscussionandinteraction,notjustdisseminationofinformation,occursatmedicalconferences

ABSTRACTObjective: ThemicrobloggingserviceTwitterusesahashtagtomarkkeywordsortopicsinatweet.HashtagstraditionallyareutilizedatmedicalconferencestoallowTwitteruserstofollowconferencenewsandcommentary.Nobenchmarks,standards,or“amplificationfactor”existfortheuseofhashtagsatmedicalconferences.ThisanalysisintendstobenchmarktheuseofTwitterhashtagsatmedicalconferencestofacilitatefuturecomparisons.

Research design and methods: ConferenceAuthority(Sylogent,Newtown,PA)wasusedtoidentifythetopmedicalconferencesbyattendancein2011for4majortherapeuticcategories(generalmedicine,oncology,gastroenterology,andcardiology).TwitteractivityforthedurationofeachconferencewasassessedusingRadian6(Salesforce.com,SanFrancisco,CA);tweet/retweetvolumeandtotalreachwererecorded.

Results:Hashtagswereutilizedat90%ofthemedicalconferences.Forthetop5conferenceswithhashtags,hashtagusagewashighestforoncology(mean,3279vs758forcardiology,331forgastroenterology,and329forgeneralmedicine).Retweetsaccountedforapproximately30%ofhashtagvolume,extendingthereachoftheinitialcommunication.ConferencesintheUnitedStateshadgreaterhashtagvolume(mean,1457)thannon-USconferences(mean,515).Inoncology,alinearrelationshipbetweenhashtagvolumeandconferenceattendancewasobserved(R ²=0.86).

Conclusions:Ofthe4therapeuticcategoriesanalyzed,oncologyconferenceshadthegreatesttotalhashtagvolume,potentiallyincreasingaudiencereachandprovidingvaluableinformationforpublicationprofessionals.FutureanalyseswillassesschangesinTwitterusageandexaminepracticalapplicationsforpublicationprofessionals.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLICATION PROFESSIONALS• Twitterisrecognizedbymedicalconferencesasanimportantmeansofdisseminatinginformationandis

beingusedbyconferenceattendeestoengageindiscussions;thus,monitoringTwitteractivitymayprovidemedicalpublicationprofessionalswithuniqueinsightsincluding

– Suggestionoftopicsthatshouldbeaddressedmorefullyinasubsequentpublication(eg,safetyconcerns)

– Areasforfutureanalyses

– Identificationofmedicalprofessionalswithaninterestorexpertiseinaspecificarea

• FutureanalysesshouldassesschangesinTwitterusageandexaminepracticalapplicationsforpublicationprofessionals(eg,useasametricforassessmentofdatadissemination)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSTheauthorsareemployeesofMedThinkSciCom,Inc,andhavenofinancialinterestsintheoutcomeofthestudy.Allauthorscontributedtotheresearchandwritingoftheposter.AdditionalcontributorsincludedGinnyBolandforresearchdesignandimplementationandJillianGeeforwritingexpertise.TheauthorswouldliketothankChristinaCartwrightforeditorialsupportandLoftinBarnesforassistanceinthepreparationofthepostergraphics.

Datahavebeenrevisedsincetheabstractwassubmitted.

Table. MajorConferencesIdentifiedbySpeciality

Field ConferenceConference attendees in

2011, nConference-associated

hashtag

Oncology/Hematology ASCO

ASH

AACR

ECCO/ESMOa

ASTRO

32,500

18,000

17,500

15,000

11,500

#ASCO11

#ASH11

#AACR

#emcc2011

#ASTRO11

Cardiology/Vasculardiseases ESCa

AHA

ACC

JCSa

HRS

EuroPCRa

32,500

23,500

20,000

17,850

13,500

12,750

#ESCparis2011

#AHA11

#ACC11

None

#HRS2011

#insidepcr

Gastroenterology/Hepatology DDW

UEGWa

EASLa

AASLD

ACG

16,50014,000

8250

8000

4500

#DDW11

#UEGW

#ILC11

#LiverMeeting

#acg2011

Generalmedicine OMED

ACP

AAPA

PCCa

NMA

WoncaEuropea

10,000

9500

9000

5000-6000

4500

3750

#OMED2011

#im11

#AAPAImpact

None

#nma2011

#WONCA

AACR,AmericanAssociationforCancerResearch;AAPA,AmericanAcademyofPhysicianAssistants;AASLD,AmericanAssociationfortheStudyofLiverDiseases;ACC,AmericanCollegeofCardiology;ACG,AmericanCollegeofGastroenterology;ACP,AmericanCollegeofPhysicians;AHA,AmericanHeartAssociation;ASCO,AmericanSocietyofClinicalOncology;ASH,AmericanSocietyofHematology;ASTRO,AmericanSocietyforRadiationOncology;DDW,DigestiveDiseaseWeek;EASL,EuropeanAssociationfortheStudyoftheLiver;ECCO/ESMO,EuropeanCancerOrganisation/EuropeanSocietyforMedicalOncology;ESC,EuropeanSocietyofCardiology;EuroPCR,EuropeanAssociationofPercutaneousCardiovascularIntervention;HRS,HeartRhythmSociety;JCS,JapaneseCirculationSociety;NMA,NationalMedicalAssociation;OMED,OsteopathicMedicalConference&Exposition;PCC,PrimaryCareConference;UEGW,UnitedEuropeanGastroenterologyFederation;WoncaEurope,WorldOrganizationofNationalColleges,AcademiesandAcademicAssociationsofGeneralPractitioners/FamilyPhysicians,Europeanbranch.aInternationalconference.

Figure 3. Relationshipbetweenconferenceattendanceandtotalhashtag-associatedtweetreachfrom(A)allmedicalconferencesevaluated(N=20)and(B)oncologyconferences(n=5).AACR,AmericanAssociationforCancerResearch;ASCO,AmericanSocietyofClinicalOncology;ASH,AmericanSocietyofHematology;ASTRO,AmericanSocietyforRadiationOncology;ECCO/ESMO,EuropeanCancerOrganisation/EuropeanSocietyforMedicalOncology.

35

A

30 R 2=0.4463

25

Atte

ndan

ce, t

hous

ands

20

15

10

5

00 2 4 6 8

Total reach, millions

10 12 14 16

35

B

30 R 2=0.8622

ASTRO

ECCO/ESMO

ASHAACR

ASCO

25

Atte

ndan

ce, t

hous

ands

20

15

10

5

00 2 4 6 8

Total reach, millions

10 12 14 16

POSTER NUMBER

25

Scan with QR code reader to obtain a PDF of this poster and hear more from one of the authors.

Figure 1. Overalltweetvolumebyconferencespeciality.

3500 3280

758

331 329

3000

2500

Hash

tag-

asso

ciat

ed tw

eets

,m

ean,

n 2000

1500

1000

500

Oncology/Hematology

(n=5)

Cardiology/Vascular diseases

(n=5)

Gastroenterology/Hepatology

(n=5)

Generalmedicine

(n=5)

0

Doesincreasedtweetvolumesuggestamorerapiddisseminationmindset?

Figure 2. TotalnumberofTwitteruserswhoreceivedaconference-associatedtweetdirectlyorthroughretweeting(ie,totalreach)byconferencespeciality.

7

5.9

3.2

0.3 0.3

6

5

Tota

l rea

ch, m

ean,

mill

ions

4

3

2

1

Oncology/Hematology

(n=5)

Cardiology/Vascular diseases

(n=5)

Gastroenterology/Hepatology

(n=5)

Generalmedicine

(n=5)

0

Whywouldoncology/hematologyandcardiology/vasculardiseasesattendeesappeartobemoreengaged?

8th Annual Meeting of ISMPP • April 23-25, 2012 • Baltimore, MD