Advertisement

Rheumatology International

, Volume 39, Issue 5, pp 893–899 | Cite as

#EULAR2018: The Annual European Congress of Rheumatology—a Twitter hashtag analysis

  • José B. NegrónEmail author
Observational Research

Abstract

The objective of this study was to explore the hashtag #EULAR2018 on Twitter during the period of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Annual European Congress to better comprehend the implications and patterns of social media (SM) data and their possible impact on users interested in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. A mixed methods study combining SM performance data with qualitative content analysis of tweets was conducted. All the tweets publicly posted with #EULAR2018 were tracked using Symplur™ and Keyhole. Parameters such as number of users, engagement, reach, impressions, gender, source used to tweet, type of post, countries, trending topics, and main themes were analyzed. A total of 10,431 tweets using #EULAR2018 were tracked. Most of them were original and reached by > 2,950,000 users. Some of the retweets came from non-attendees to the congress. Males tweeted more than females; however, this gender disparity was not notable among the influential users. “Patients” were identified as the key topic. Sharing knowledge from the in situ congress, marketing or advertising, and sharing experiences or thoughts were identified as the main themes. Some dissonances between EULAR discourse and behavior that require further attention were identified. The EULAR congress is a staggering source of information with the potential of generating debate and promoting new practices in the rheumatology field, regardless of the place of origin of the users exposed to it, or whether or not the users attended the congress. EULAR should recognize the value and power of these data and incorporate them in the benchmarking of challenges and opportunities for the organization.

Keywords

EULAR Social media research Twitter Qualitative research Rheumatology 

Notes

Acknowledgements

To Simon R. Stones for showing me that he is more than just a patient; he is a person with a disease.

Author contributions

JB: conceived, planned, and conducted the study. He was also in charge of the data analysis, the interpretation of the results, the writing of the manuscript, and its revision.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific Grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Dr. Negrón reports personal fees and Grants from the European League Against Rheumatism outside the submitted work.

References

  1. 1.
    EULAR (2018) The structure of EULAR. https://www.congress.eular.org/index.cfm. Accessed 18 Jun 2018
  2. 2.
    EULAR (2018) EULAREULAR Congress News 2018. https://www.congress.eular.org/index.cfm. Accessed 17 Jun 2018
  3. 3.
    Quan-Haase A, Sloan L (2017) Introduction to the handbook of social media research methods: goals, challenges and innovations. In: The SAGE handbook of social media research methods, Sage, Beverly Hills, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    McCay-Peet L, Quan-Haase A (2017) What is social media and what questions can social media research help us answer? In: The SAGE handbook of social media research methods, Sage, Beverly Hills, pp 13–26Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sloan L, Quan-Haase A (2017) The SAGE handbook of social media research methods. Sage, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Anderson G, Gleeson S, Rissel C et al (2014) Twitter tweets and twaddle: twittering at AHPA’s National Health Promotion Conference. Health Promot J Aust 25(2):143–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Attai DJ, Radford DM, Cowher MS (2016) Tweeting the meeting: twitter use at the American Society of Breast Surgeons annual meeting 2013–2016. Ann Surg Oncol 23(10):3418–3422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Awad NI, Cocchio C (2015) Use of Twitter at a major national pharmacy conference. Am J Health Syst Pharm 72(1):65–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Borgmann H, Woelm J-H, Merseburger A et al (2016) Qualitative Twitter analysis of participants, tweet strategies, and tweet content at a major urologic conference. Can Urol Assoc J 10(1–2):39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Canvasser NE, Ramo C, Morgan TM et al (2015) The use of social media in endourology: an analysis of the 2013 World Congress of Endourology meeting. J Endourol 29(5):615–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cochran A, Kao LS, Gusani NJ et al (2014) Use of Twitter to document the 2013 Academic Surgical Congress. J Surg Res 190(1):36–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ferguson C, Inglis SC, Newton PJ et al (2014) Social media: a tool to spread information: a case study analysis of twitter conversation at the Cardiac Society of Australia & New Zealand 61st annual scientific meeting 2013. Collegian 21(2):89–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nason G, O’Kelly F, Bouchier-Hayes D et al (2015) Twitter expands the reach and engagement of a national scientific meeting: the Irish Society of Urology. Ir J Med Sci 184(3):685–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Neill A, Cronin JJ, Brannigan D et al (2014) The impact of social media on a major international emergency medicine conference. Emerg Med J 31(5):401–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Donkor B (2015) Impressions ≠ Reach. https://brnrd.me/posts/twitter-impressions-reach. Accessed 17 Jun 2018
  16. 16.
    York A (2018) Reach vs impressions: what’s the difference in terms? https://sproutsocial.com/insights/reach-vs-impressions/. Accessed 17 Jun 2018
  17. 17.
    Cha M, Haddadi H, Benevenuto F et al (2010) Measuring user influence in twitter: the million follower fallacy. Icwsm 10(10–17):30Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Katz E, Lazarsfeld PF, Roper E (2017) Personal influence: the part played by people in the flow of mass communications. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rogers EM (2010) Diffusion of innovations. Simon and Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Williams ML, Burnap P, Sloan L (2017) Crime sensing with big data: the affordances and limitations of using open-source communications to estimate crime patterns. Br J Criminol 57(2):320–340Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Flick U (2018) Doing triangulation and mixed methods. Sage, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Saldaña J (2015) The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pershad Y, Hangge PT, Albadawi H et al (2018) Social medicine: Twitter in healthcare. J Clin Med 7(6):121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jalali A, Sherbino J, Frank J et al (2015) Social media and medical education: exploring the potential of Twitter as a learning tool. Int Rev Psychiatry 27(2):140–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jalali A, Wood TJ (2013) Tweeting during conferences: educational or just another distraction? Med Educ 47(11):1129–1130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nikiphorou E, Alunno A, Carmona L et al (2017) Patient–physician collaboration in rheumatology: a necessity. BMJ Spec J 3:1Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Clair RNS (1982) Language and the social construction of reality. Lang Sci 4(2):221–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cayton H (2006) The alienating language of health care. J R Soc Med 99(10):484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Flick U (2014) An introduction to qualitative research. Sage, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bo C (2015) Social constructivism of language and meaning. Croat J Philos 15(1 (43)):87–113Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vermeire E, Hearnshaw H, Van Royen P et al (2001) Patient adherence to treatment: three decades of research. A comprehensive review. J Clin Pharm Ther 26(5):331–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bruner J (1991) The narrative construction of reality. Crit Inq 18(1):1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bruffee KA (1986) Social construction, language, and the authority of knowledge: a bibliographical essay. Coll Engl 48(8):773–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nikiphorou E, Studenic P, Ammitzboll CG et al (2017) Social media use among young rheumatologists and basic scientists: results of an international survey by the Emerging EULAR Network (EMEUNET). Ann Rheum Dis 76(4):712–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nikiphorou E, Studenic P, Alunno A et al (2018) ‘Twitterland’: a brave new world? Ann Rheum Dis 77(8):1245–1246Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Boulianne S (2015) Social media use and participation: a meta-analysis of current research. Inf Commun Soc 18(5):524–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Asur S, Huberman BA (2010) Predicting the future with social media. In: Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference on web intelligence and intelligent agent technology-volume 01 2010 IEEE Computer Society; 2010. pp 492–499Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto de Salud MusculoesqueléticaMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations