↓ Skip to main content

A Digital Ethnography of Medical Students who Use Twitter for Professional Development

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
245 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
249 Mendeley
Title
A Digital Ethnography of Medical Students who Use Twitter for Professional Development
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, May 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11606-015-3345-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katherine C. Chretien, Matthew G. Tuck, Michael Simon, Lisa O. Singh, Terry Kind

Abstract

While researchers have studied negative professional consequences of medical trainee social media use, little is known about how medical students informally use social media for education and career development. This knowledge may help future and current physicians succeed in the digital age. We aimed to explore how and why medical students use Twitter for professional development. This was a digital ethnography. Medical student "superusers" of Twitter participated in the study APPROACH: The postings ("tweets") of 31 medical student superusers were observed for 8 months (May-December 2013), and structured field notes recorded. Through purposive sampling, individual key informant interviews were conducted to explore Twitter use and values until thematic saturation was reached (ten students). Three faculty key informant interviews were also conducted. Ego network and subnetwork analysis of student key informants was performed. Qualitative analysis included inductive coding of field notes and interviews, triangulation of data, and analytic memos in an iterative process. Twitter served as a professional tool that supplemented the traditional medical school experience. Superusers approached their use of Twitter with purpose and were mindful of online professionalism as well as of being good Twitter citizens. Their tweets reflected a mix of personal and professional content. Student key informants had a high number of followers. The subnetwork of key informants was well-connected, showing evidence of a social network versus information network. Twitter provided value in two major domains: access and voice. Students gained access to information, to experts, to a variety of perspectives including patient and public perspectives, and to communities of support. They also gained a platform for advocacy, control of their digital footprint, and a sense of equalization within the medical hierarchy. Twitter can serve as a professional tool that supplements traditional education. Students' practices and guiding principles can serve as best practices for other students as well as faculty.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 245 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 249 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 2%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 241 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 36 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 11%
Student > Bachelor 22 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 21 8%
Other 20 8%
Other 63 25%
Unknown 59 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 66 27%
Social Sciences 54 22%
Psychology 15 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 6%
Arts and Humanities 10 4%
Other 32 13%
Unknown 58 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 157. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 June 2023.
All research outputs
#265,891
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#222
of 8,246 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,747
of 279,928 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#4
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,246 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,928 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 122 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.