IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0160863.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Online Discussion on #KidneyStones: A Longitudinal Assessment of Activity, Users and Content

Author

Listed:
  • Johannes Salem
  • Hendrik Borgmann
  • Matthew Bultitude
  • Hans-Martin Fritsche
  • Axel Haferkamp
  • Axel Heidenreich
  • Arkadiusz Miernik
  • Andreas Neisius
  • Thomas Knoll
  • Christian Thomas
  • Igor Tsaur

Abstract

Introduction: Twitter is a popular microblogging platform for the rapid dissemination of information and reciprocal exchange in the urological field. We aimed to assess the activity, users and content of the online discussion, #KidneyStones, on Twitter. Methods: We investigated the Symplur Signals analytics tool for Twitter data distributed via the #KidneyStones hashtag over a one year period. Activity analysis reflected overall activity and tweet enhancements. We assessed users’ geolocations and performed an influencer analysis. Content analysis included the most frequently used words, tweet sentiment and shares for top tweets. Results: 3,426 users generated over 10,333 tweets, which were frequently accompanied by links (49%), mentions (30%) and photos (13%). Users came from 106 countries across the globe and were most frequently from North America (63%) and Europe (16%). Individual and organisational healthcare professionals made up 56% of the influencers of the Twitter discussion on #KidneyStones. Besides the words ‘kidney’ (used 4,045 times) and ‘stones’ (3,335), ‘pain’ (1,233), ‘urine’ (1,158), and ‘risk’ (1,023) were the most frequently used words. 56% of tweets had a positive sentiment. The median (range) number of shares was 85 (62–587) for the top 10 links, 45.5 (17–94) for the top 10 photos, and 44 (22–95) for the top 10 retweets. Conclusion: The rapidly growing Twitter discussion on #KidneyStones engaged multiple stakeholders in the healthcare sector on a global scale and reached both professionals and laypeople. When used effectively and responsibly, the Twitter platform could improve prevention and medical care of kidney stone patients.

Suggested Citation

  • Johannes Salem & Hendrik Borgmann & Matthew Bultitude & Hans-Martin Fritsche & Axel Haferkamp & Axel Heidenreich & Arkadiusz Miernik & Andreas Neisius & Thomas Knoll & Christian Thomas & Igor Tsaur, 2016. "Online Discussion on #KidneyStones: A Longitudinal Assessment of Activity, Users and Content," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-11, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0160863
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0160863
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0160863
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0160863&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0160863?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ziqi Zhang & Wasim Ahmed, 2019. "A comparison of information sharing behaviours across 379 health conditions on Twitter," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 64(3), pages 431-440, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0160863. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.