#EULAR2018: The Annual European Congress of Rheumatology—a Twitter hashtag analysis
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.
KeywordsEULAR Social media research Twitter Qualitative research Rheumatology
To Simon R. Stones for showing me that he is more than just a patient; he is a person with a disease.
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.
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.
- 1.EULAR (2018) The structure of EULAR. https://www.congress.eular.org/index.cfm. Accessed 18 Jun 2018
- 2.EULAR (2018) EULAREULAR Congress News 2018. https://www.congress.eular.org/index.cfm. Accessed 17 Jun 2018
- 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.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.Sloan L, Quan-Haase A (2017) The SAGE handbook of social media research methods. Sage, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
- 15.Donkor B (2015) Impressions ≠ Reach. https://brnrd.me/posts/twitter-impressions-reach. Accessed 17 Jun 2018
- 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.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.Katz E, Lazarsfeld PF, Roper E (2017) Personal influence: the part played by people in the flow of mass communications. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 19.Rogers EM (2010) Diffusion of innovations. Simon and Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 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.Flick U (2018) Doing triangulation and mixed methods. Sage, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
- 22.Saldaña J (2015) The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
- 26.Nikiphorou E, Alunno A, Carmona L et al (2017) Patient–physician collaboration in rheumatology: a necessity. BMJ Spec J 3:1Google Scholar
- 29.Flick U (2014) An introduction to qualitative research. Sage, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
- 30.Bo C (2015) Social constructivism of language and meaning. Croat J Philos 15(1 (43)):87–113Google Scholar
- 35.Nikiphorou E, Studenic P, Alunno A et al (2018) ‘Twitterland’: a brave new world? Ann Rheum Dis 77(8):1245–1246Google Scholar
- 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