Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Integrating Social Media into Urologic Health care: What Can We Learn from Other Disciplines?

  • Urosurgery (J Collins, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Social media (SoMe) have become an integral part in many aspects of personal and professional life. With current uptake rates of 50–70 % among urologists, SoMe platforms merit huge potential for dissemination of information and professional exchange among stakeholders in urology. Application of SoMe includes conference conversations via tweet chats, health education via YouTube videos, and Twitter online journal clubs. In addition, a number of urology journals have embraced SoMe to allow rapid dissemination of their content and engagement with their readers. Guidance for the appropriate use of SoMe is provided to urologists by several organizations. Besides urology, other disciplines have adopted SoMe for a variety of areas: continuing professional development, awareness of rare diseases, recruitment of study participants, patient education and support, and publicizing research. Openness to new approaches is the basic prerequisite for a transfer of successful concepts embraced by other specialties, to the field of urology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Merriam-Webster. social media. Available at: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social%20media Accessed. 11 November 2015.

  2. Fernandez-Luque L, Bau T. Health and social media: perfect storm of information. Healthc Inform Res. 2015;21(2):67–73.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. We are social. Digital, Social & Mobile Worldwide in 2015. Available at: http://wearesocial.net/blog/2015/01/digital-social-mobile-worldwide-2015/. Accessed 11 November 2015.

  4. Kaplan AHM. Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Bus Horiz. 2010;53(1):59–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Craig Smith. How many people use 950+ of the top social media, apps and digital services? Available at: http://expandedramblings.com/index.php/resource-how-many-people-use-the-top-social-media/. Accessed 11 November 2015.

  6. Statista tsp. Number of monthly active Facebook users worldwide as of 3rd quarter 2015. Available at: http://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/. Accessed 11 November 2015.

  7. Twitter. TWITTER USAGE / COMPANY FACTS. Available at: https://about.twitter.com/company. Accessed 11 November 2015.

  8. Symplur. The Healthcare Hashtag Project. Available at: http://www.symplur.com/healthcare-hashtags/. Accessed 11 November 2015.

  9. Bupa Health pulse 2012 survey. Why better informed patients are better for themselves, doctors and health systems. Available at: http://www.bupa.com/media/535303/health_pulse_patient_power_final.pdf. Accessed 5 July 2015.

  10. Gilbert SM, Sanda MG, Dunn RL, Greenfield TK, Hembroff L, Klein E, et al. Satisfaction with information used to choose prostate cancer treatment. J Urol. 2014;191(5):1265–71.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Meehan TP. Transforming patient to partner: the e-patient movement is a call to action. Conn Med. 2014;78(3):175–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Loeb S, Bayne CE, Frey C, Davies BJ, Averch TD, Woo HH, et al. Use of social media in urology: data from the American Urological Association (AUA). BJU Int. 2014;113(6):993–8. First assessment of social media use in urology.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Davies N, Murphy DG, van Rij S, Woo HH, Lawrentschuk N. Online and social media presence of Australian and New Zealand urologists. BJU Int. 2015

  14. Fuoco M, Leveridge MJ. Early adopters or laggards? Attitudes toward and use of social media among urologists. BJU Int. 2015;115(3):491–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. McGowan BS, Wasko M, Vartabedian BS, Miller RS, Freiherr DD, Abdolrasulnia M. Understanding the factors that influence the adoption and meaningful use of social media by physicians to share medical information. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(5), e117.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Adilman R, Rajmohan Y, Brooks E, Roldan Urgoiti G, Chung C, Hammad N et al. Social media use among physicians and trainees: results of a national medical oncology physician survey. J Oncol Pract. 2015.

  17. Avci K, Celikden SG, Eren S, Aydenizoz D. Assessment of medical students’ attitudes on social media use in medicine: a cross-sectional study. BMC Med Educ. 2015;15:18.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wilkinson SE, Basto MY, Perovic G, Lawrentschuk N, Murphy DG. The social media revolution is changing the conference experience: analytics and trends from eight international meetings. BJU Int. 2015;115(5):839–46. This article shows the huge increase of Twitter use at urologic congresses.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Matta R, Doiron C, Leveridge MJ. The dramatic increase in social media in urology. J Urol. 2014;192(2):494–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Nason GJ, O'Kelly F, Bouchier-Hayes D, Quinlan DM, Manecksha RP. Twitter expands the reach and engagement of a national scientific meeting: the Irish Society of Urology. Ir J Med Sci. 2015;184(3):685–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Canvasser NE, Ramo C, Morgan TM, Zheng K, Hollenbeck BK, Ghani KR. The use of social media in endourology: an analysis of the 2013 World Congress of Endourology meeting. J Endourol. 2015;29(5):615–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Thangasamy IA, Leveridge M, Davies BJ, Finelli A, Stork B, Woo HH. International Urology Journal Club via Twitter: 12-month experience. Eur Urol. 2014;66(1):112–7. A novel approach of international journal club through Twitter and its first analysis.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Linton KD, Woo HH, Twitter International Urology Journal C. Complications of prostate cancer treatment. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(4):e150–1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Nason GJ, O'Kelly F, Kelly ME, Phelan N, Manecksha RP, Lawrentschuk N, et al. The emerging use of Twitter by urological journals. BJU Int. 2015;115(3):486–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Darling ESD, Drew J, Cote I. The role of twitter in the life cycle of a scientific publication. Ideas Ecol Evol. 2013;6:32–43.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hawkins CM, Hillman BJ, Carlos RC, Rawson JV, Haines R, Duszak Jr R. The impact of social media on readership of a peer-reviewed medical journal. J Am Coll Radiol. 2014;11(11):1038–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kwok R. Research impact: altmetrics make their mark. Nature. 2013;500(7463):491–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kutikov A, Woo HH, Catto JW. Urology Tag Ontology Project: standardizing social media communication descriptors. Eur Urol. 2015. This study is a standardized nomenclature to discuss urologic topics in Twitter. It is an important knowledge for every urological Twitter conversation

  29. Dal MF. Online survey on twitter: a urological experience. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(10):e238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Borgmann H DS, Tsaur I, Haferkamp A, Loeb S. Novel survey disseminated through Twitter supports its utility for networking, disseminating research, advocacy, clinical practice and other professional goals. CUAJ 2015.

  31. Staccini P, Fernandez-Luque L. Health Social Media and Patient-Centered Care: Buzz or Evidence? Findings from the Section Education and Consumer Health Informatics of the 2015 Edition of the IMIA Yearbook. Yearb Med Inform. 2015;10(1):160–3.

  32. Lauckner C, Whitten P. The differential effects of social media sites for promoting cancer risk reduction. J Cancer Educ. 2015.

  33. Sood A, Sarangi S, Pandey A, Murugiah K. YouTube as a source of information on kidney stone disease. Urology. 2011;77(3):558–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Steinberg PL, Wason S, Stern JM, Deters L, Kowal B, Seigne J. YouTube as source of prostate cancer information. Urology. 2010;75(3):619–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Nason GJ, Kelly P, Kelly ME, Burke MJ, Aslam A, Giri SK, et al. YouTube as an educational tool regarding male urethral catheterization. Scand J Urol. 2015;49(2):189–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Amazon.com. Mechanical Turk. Available at: https://www.mturk.com. Accessed 11 November 2015.

  37. Chen C, White L, Kowalewski T, Aggarwal R, Lintott C, Comstock B, et al. Crowd-sourced assessment of technical skills: a novel method to evaluate surgical performance. J Surg Res. 2014;187(1):65–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Dizon DS, Graham D, Thompson MA, Johnson LJ, Johnston C, Fisch MJ, et al. Practical guidance: the use of social media in oncology practice. J Oncol Pract. 2012;8(5):e114–24.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. American Medical Association. Professionalism in the use of social media. Available at: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics/opinion9124.page? Accessed 11 November 2015.

  40. Roupret M, Morgan TM, Bostrom PJ, Cooperberg MR, Kutikov A, Linton KD, et al. European Association of Urology (@Uroweb) recommendations on the appropriate use of social media. Eur Urol. 2014;66(4):628–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Murphy DG, Loeb S, Basto MY, Challacombe B, Trinh QD, Leveridge M, et al. Engaging responsibly with social media: the BJUI guidelines. BJU Int. 2014;114(1):9–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Greysen SR, Kind T, Chretien KC. Online professionalism and the mirror of social media. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(11):1227–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Mayo Clinic Center for Social Media. Social media basics certification. Available at: http://socialmedia.mayoclinic.org/social-media-basics-certification/. Accessed 11 November 2015.

  44. Dong C, Cheema M, Samarasekera D, Rajaratnam V. Using LinkedIn for continuing community of practice among hand surgeons worldwide. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2015;35(3):185–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. The ALS Association. ALS Ice Bucket Challenge. Available at: http://www.alsa.org/fight-als/ice-bucket-challenge.html. Accessed 11 November 2015.

  46. Vaidya M. Ice bucket challenge cash may help derisk ALS drug research. Nat Med. 2014;20(10):1080.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. BBC. How much has the ice bucket challenge achieved? Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29013707. Accessed 11 November 2015.

  48. Villanti AC, Jacobs MA, Zawistowski G, Brookover J, Stanton CA, Graham AL. Impact of baseline assessment modality on enrollment and retention in a Facebook smoking cessation study. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(7):e179.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Attai DJ, Cowher MS, Al-Hamadani M, Schoger JM, Staley AC, Landercasper J. Twitter social media is an effective tool for breast cancer patient education and support: patient-reported outcomes by survey. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(7):e188.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Branford OA, Mallucci P. Publicize or perish! A guide to social media promotion of scientific articles: featuring the plastic and reconstructive surgery “Author Tool Kit”. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136(4):579e–81e.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Statista tsp. Ranking of social networks. Available at: http://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/. Accessed 11 November 2015.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, St.-Josefs-Hospital Dortmund, Wilhelm-Schmidt-Str. 4, 44263, Dortmund, Germany

    Johannes Salem

  2. Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany

    Hendrik Borgmann

  3. Division of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, University of Melbourne, St Andrews Place, East, Melbourne, VIC, 3002, Australia

    Declan G. Murphy

  4. Division of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, 4 Erin Street, Richmond, Victoria, 3121, Australia

    Declan G. Murphy

Authors
  1. Johannes Salem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hendrik Borgmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Declan G. Murphy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johannes Salem.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Johannes Salem, Hendrik Borgmann, and Declan G Murphy each declares no potential conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Urosurgery

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Salem, J., Borgmann, H. & Murphy, D.G. Integrating Social Media into Urologic Health care: What Can We Learn from Other Disciplines?. Curr Urol Rep 17, 13 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-015-0570-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-015-0570-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation