↓ Skip to main content

#CGS2015: An Evaluation of Twitter Use at the Canadian Geriatrics Society Annual Scientific Meeting

Overview of attention for article published in Canadian Journal of Geriatrics, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
#CGS2015: An Evaluation of Twitter Use at the Canadian Geriatrics Society Annual Scientific Meeting
Published in
Canadian Journal of Geriatrics, July 2018
DOI 10.5770/cgj.21.302
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bonnie Cheung, Camilla L Wong, Amanda Gardhouse, Christopher Frank, Laura Budd

Abstract

Twitter is a microblogging platform increasingly used in medicine to overcome geographic barriers and promote international connections. Tweets, the 280-character microblogs, are catalogued by hashtags (#). This study evaluates and describes the participation, content, and impact of Twitter at the 2015 Canadian Geriatrics Society (CGS) Annual Scientific Meeting, during which #CGS2015 was the official conference hashtag. Twitter transcripts of #CGS2015 were obtained from Symplur to prospectively analyze tweets for content and quantitative metrics. TweetReach was used to retrospectively analyze tweets with the hashtag #CGS2014 from the 2014 meeting for growth analysis. The impact of Twitter on the conference experience was derived from questionnaires. There were 1,491 #CGS2015 tweets, 40% of which were original. Tweet content was categorized into conference sessions (38.8%), networking (29.2%), resource sharing (17.6%), and conference promotion (14.3%). Of the 279 participants, 60% were non-Canadian. The questionnaire data from 86 respondents demonstrated generally positive experiences with Twitter, particularly with facilitating collegial interactions, resource sharing, and insight into sessions not attended live. The most cited drawback was divided attention when using personal devices. Analysis comparing #CGS2014 to #CGS2015 demonstrated increases in total participants (50 to 279), number of tweets (434 to 1,491) and impressions (155,600 to 943,825). Twitter engagement at the CGS 2015 annual meeting enabled international participation in networking, resource sharing, and online discussions of sessions. Future conferences may benefit from a workshop on Twitter basics for attendees and presenters.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 24%
Student > Master 5 17%
Researcher 4 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 14%
Other 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 6 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 17%
Computer Science 4 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 9 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 26 July 2018.
All research outputs
#19,951,180
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Canadian Journal of Geriatrics
#112
of 133 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#249,371
of 339,673 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Canadian Journal of Geriatrics
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 133 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 339,673 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.