Title |
Utilisation des réseaux sociaux par les urologues français : résultats d’une étude de l’Association française d’urologie
|
---|---|
Published in |
Progrès en Urologie, June 2015
|
DOI | 10.1016/j.purol.2015.03.008 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
V. Misrai, C. Castagnola, J.-L. Descotes, M. Rouprêt |
Abstract |
Social Media (SoMe) have changed the face of modern medicine. Our purpose was to make an inventory on the use of SoMe within urologists members of the French Urological Association (AFU). A 15 questions-survey was sent by email 2months to urologists AFU members before the 108th French Congress of Urology (#CFU2014). At the same time, the activity of urologists using Twitter was analyzed over the period of the national conference with the symplur software (www.symplur.com). Overall, 270 (17.3%) surveys were completed. Only 50% of responders had an online SoMe account. The most commonly used social media platforms were: Facebook (36.1%) followed by LinkedIn (28.2%), Google+ (19.6%), YouTube (18.7%) and Twitter (17.4%). The use of SoMe was higher in the age groups 30-40 and 40-50 years than in older age groups (83% versus 36%). Only 38.7% of respondents reported using SoMe in a professional field. At the congress #CFU2014, there were over 1000 tweets generated by 173 different contributors. Only a minority of French urologists have reported to be connected to SoMe and a predominantly personal use. The emergence of Twitter in French urological conferences is very new but seems promising. Further studies are needed, especially within the members of the residents French urological association to better characterize the true impact of SoMe in urology. 4. |
Twitter Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
France | 7 | 50% |
United States | 2 | 14% |
India | 1 | 7% |
Canada | 1 | 7% |
Unknown | 3 | 21% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 10 | 71% |
Scientists | 2 | 14% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 15 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Bachelor | 2 | 13% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 13% |
Researcher | 2 | 13% |
Student > Master | 2 | 13% |
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 7% |
Other | 2 | 13% |
Unknown | 4 | 27% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 33% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 13% |
Computer Science | 2 | 13% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 7% |
Unknown | 5 | 33% |