Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Media and Social Media

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Navigating Organized Urology

  • 180 Accesses

Abstract

Social media are widely used by medical societies, healthcare providers, patients, and other stakeholders. There are multiple public-facing social networks as well as platforms specific to healthcare professionals and the majority of urologists have a social media account. Social media have many potential benefits for clinical care, research, and education along with potential risks including the spread of misinformation and professional misconduct. Urologists should review the professional guidelines on social media prior to use. It is important to maintain an ongoing relationship with your institution’s media department to identify potential opportunities. When contacted by the media to participate in an interview, it is important to respond promptly to these inquiries and remember to use lay language and avoid medical jargon. These relationships are essential for urologists seeking repeated, ongoing media opportunities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Loeb S, Carrick T, Frey C, Titus T. Increasing social media use in urology: 2017 American urological association survey. Eur Urol Focus. 2020;6:605–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Taylor J, Loeb S. Guideline of guidelines: social media in urology. BJU Int. 2020;125:379–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. American Urological Association Social Media Best Practices. http://auanet.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=20294. Accessed 30 Sept 2018.

  4. Murphy DG, Loeb S, Basto MY, Challacombe B, Trinh QD, Leveridge M, et al. Engaging responsibly with social media: the BJUI guidelines. BJU Int. 2014;114:9–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Borgmann H, Cooperberg M, Murphy D, Loeb S, N'Dow J, Ribal MJ, et al. Online professionalism-2018 update of European Association of Urology (@Uroweb) recommendations on the appropriate use of social media. Eur Urol. 2018. S0302-2838(18)30614-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.08.022.

  6. Borgmann H, DeWitt S, Tsaur I, Haferkamp A, Loeb S. Novel survey disseminated through Twitter supports its utility for networking, disseminating research, advocacy, clinical practice and other professional goals. Can Urol Assoc J. 2015;9:E713–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ciprut S, Curnyn C, Davuluri M, Sternberg K, Loeb S. Twitter activity associated With US news and world report reputation scores for urology departments. Urology. 2017;108:11–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sternberg KM, Loeb SL, Canes D, Donnelly L, Tsai MH. The use of Twitter to facilitate sharing of clinical expertise in urology. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018;25:183–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Rowe CK, Shnorhavorian M, Block P, Ahn J, Merguerian PA. Using social media for patient-reported outcomes: A study of genital appearance and sexual function in adult bladder exstrophy patients. J Pediatr Urol. 2018;14(322):e1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Prabhu V, Lee T, Loeb S, Holmes JH, Gold HT, Lepor H, et al. Twitter response to the United States preventive services task force recommendations against screening with prostate-specific antigen. BJU Int. 2015;116:65–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Loeb S, Sengupta S, Butaney M, Macaluso JN, Jr., Czarniecki SW, Robbins R, et al. Dissemination of misinformative and biased information about prostate Cancer on YouTube. Eur Urol. 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Larouche M, Geoffrion R, Lazare D, Clancy A, Lee T, Koenig NA, et al. Mid-urethral slings on YouTube: quality information on the internet? Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27:903–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Xu AJ, Taylor J, Gao T, Mihalcea R, Perez-Rosas V, Loeb S. TikTok and prostate cancer: misinformation and quality of information using validated questionnaires. BJU Int. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15403.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ibrahim AM, Lillemoe KD, Klingensmith ME, Dimick JB. Visual abstracts to disseminate research on social media: a prospective, case-control crossover study. Annals Surg. 2017;266:e46–8.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Nason GJ, O’Kelly F, Kelly ME, Phelan N, Manecksha RP, Lawrentschuk N, et al. The emerging use of Twitter by urological journals. BJU Int. 2015;115:486–90.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hayon S, Tripathi H, Stormont IM, Dunne MM, Naslund MJ, Siddiqui MM. Twitter mentions and academic citations in the urologic literature. Urology. 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Rivas JG, Socarras MR, Patruno G, Uvin P, Esperto F, Dinis PJ, et al. Perceived role of social media in urologic knowledge acquisition among young urologists: A European survey. Eur Urol Focus. 2018;4:768–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Loeb S, Roupret M, Van Oort I, N’Dow J, van Gurp M, Bloemberg J, et al. Novel use of Twitter to disseminate and evaluate adherence to clinical guidelines by the European Association of Urology. BJU Int. 2017;119:820–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Topf JM, Sparks MA, Phelan PJ, Shah N, Lerma EV, Graham-Brown MPM, et al. The evolution of the journal club: from Osler to Twitter. Am J Kidney Dis. 2017;69:827–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Truong H, Salib A, Rowe CK. The use of social media in pediatric urology-forging new paths or crossing boundaries? Curr Urol Rep. 2019;20:72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Loeb S, Taylor J, Butaney M, Byrne NK, Gao L, Soule HR, et al. Twitter-based Prostate Cancer Journal Club (#ProstateJC) Promotes multidisciplinary global scientific discussion and research dissemination. Eur Urol. 2019;75:881–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Borno HT, Zhang S, Bakke B, Bell A, Zuniga KB, Li P, et al. Racial disparities and online health information: YouTube and prostate cancer clinical trials. BJU Int. 2020;126:11–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Loeb S, Taylor J, Borin JF, Mihalcea R, Perez-Rosas V, Byrne N, et al. Fake news: spread of misinformation about urological conditions on social media. Eur Urol Focus. 2019;6:437–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Koo K, Bowman MS, Ficko Z, Gormley EA. Older and wiser? Changes in unprofessional content on urologists’ social media after transition from residency to practice. BJU Int. 2018;122:337–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Dubin JM, Greer AB, Patel P, Carrion DM, Paesano N, Kettache RH, et al. Global survey of the roles and attitudes toward social media platforms amongst urology trainees. Urology. 2021;147:64–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Dubin JM, Greer AB, Patel P, Carrion DM, Paesano N, Kettache RH, et al. Global survey evaluating drawbacks of social media usage for practising urologists. BJU Int. 2020;126:7–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. van den Eijnden RJJM, Lemmens JS, Valkenburg PM. The Social Media Disorder Scale. Comput Hum Behav. 2016;61:478–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Cuellar JM, Lanman TH. “Text neck”: an epidemic of the modern era of cell phones? Spine J Off J North Am Spine Soc. 2017;17:901–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology and Population Health, New York University and Manhattan Veterans Affairs, 227 E 30th Street #612, New York, NY, 10016, USA

    Stacy Loeb

Authors
  1. Stacy Loeb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stacy Loeb .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA

    Stephen Y. Nakada

  2. Department of Urology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA

    Sutchin R. Patel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Loeb, S. (2022). Media and Social Media. In: Nakada, S.Y., Patel, S.R. (eds) Navigating Organized Urology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05540-9_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05540-9_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-05539-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-05540-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation