Title |
The Virtual Toxicology Journal Club: the Dissemination and Discussion of Noteworthy Manuscripts Using Twitter
|
---|---|
Published in |
Journal of Medical Toxicology, June 2018
|
DOI | 10.1007/s13181-018-0670-8 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Peter R. Chai, Anne-Michelle Ruha, Kelly E. Wong, Derek L. Monette, Meghan B. Spyres, Jeff Lapoint, Howard Greller, Mark B. Mycyk |
Abstract |
Twitter-based chat groups (tweetchats) structured as virtual journal clubs have been demonstrated to provide value to learners. In order to promote topics in medical toxicology, we developed the #firesidetox tweetchat as a virtual journal club to discuss and disseminate topics in medical toxicology. A group of medical toxicologists from the American College of Medical Toxicology (ACMT) Public Affairs Committee and editorial board of the Journal of Medical Toxicology (JMT) developed a quarterly one hour tweetchat featuring JMT manuscripts. We gathered basic twittergraphics and used a healthcare hashtag aggregator to measure the number of impressions, participants, and tweets per tweetchat session. A qualitative analysis of important themes from #firesidetox was also completed. During five tweetchats over 12 months, we attracted a mean of 23 participants generating a mean of 150 tweets per #firesidetox tweetchat. Tweets generated a mean of 329,200 impressions (unique user views): these impressions grew by 300% from the first through fifth #firesidetox. The majority of participants self-identified as medical toxicologists or physician learners. Although most were from the USA, participants also came from Australia, Poland, and Qatar. Most tweets centered on medical education and 7.9% tweets were learner-driven or questions asking for a medical toxicologist expert opinion. The #firesidetox attracted a diverse group of toxicologists, learners, and members of the public in a virtual journal club setting. The increasing number of impressions, participants, and tweets during #firesidetox demonstrates the tweetchat model to discuss pertinent toxicology topics is feasible and well received among its participants. |
Twitter Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 16 | 53% |
Qatar | 1 | 3% |
Chile | 1 | 3% |
Canada | 1 | 3% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
Unknown | 10 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 13 | 43% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 11 | 37% |
Scientists | 5 | 17% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 17 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 4 | 24% |
Other | 3 | 18% |
Student > Bachelor | 2 | 12% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
Professor | 1 | 6% |
Other | 3 | 18% |
Unknown | 3 | 18% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 35% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 18% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 6% |
Social Sciences | 1 | 6% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 6% |
Other | 0 | 0% |
Unknown | 5 | 29% |