Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28818821›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2017

Patient Participation at Health Care Conferences: Engaged Patients Increase Information Flow, Expand Propagation, and Deepen Engagement in the Conversation of Tweets Compared to Physicians or Researchers.

Audun Utengen, Dara Rouholiman, Jamison G Gamble, Francisco Jose Grajales, Nisha Pradhan, Alicia C Staley, Liza Bernstein, Sean D Young, Kevin A Clauson, Larry F Chu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Engaging With Health Consumers in Scientific Conferences-As Partners not Bystanders.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Empathy as a state beyond feeling: a patient and clinician perspective.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2019
    Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Audun Utengen *Symplur, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4851-269X
Dara Rouholiman *Stanford Medicine X, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1188-6877
Jamison G Gamble *Stanford Medicine X, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3168-054X
Francisco Jose Grajales *Center for Social Innovation and Impact Investing, Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2942-4889
Nisha Pradhan *Clinical Genetics Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-2777-4682
Alicia C Staley *Stanford Medicine X, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5321-3179
Liza Bernstein *Stanford Medicine X, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-9235-6634
Sean D Young *University of California Institute for Prediction Technology, Department of Family Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6052-4875
Kevin A Clauson *College of Pharmacy, Lipscomb University, Nashville, TN, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-2774-8169
Larry F Chu *Stanford Medicine X, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-0814-6402

Funding

UCLA Rapid, Relevant, Rigorous Implementation Science HubP30MH058107 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI RAPHAEL J LANDOVITZ · 1997 to 2026
$53.5M
NIMH NIH HHS P30 MH058107
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth care conferences present a unique opportunity to network, spark innovation, and disseminate novel information to a large audience, but the dissemination of information typically stays within very specific networks. Social network analysis can be adopted to understand the flow of information between virtual social communities and the role of patients within the network.

objectiveThe purpose of this study is to examine the impact engaged patients bring to health care conference social media information flow and how they expand dissemination and distribution of tweets compared to other health care conference stakeholders such as physicians and researchers.

methodsFrom January 2014 through December 2016, 7,644,549 tweets were analyzed from 1672 health care conferences with at least 1000 tweets who had registered in Symplur's Health Care Hashtag Project from 2014 to 2016. The tweet content was analyzed to create a list of the top 100 influencers by mention from each conference, who were then subsequently categorized by stakeholder group. Multivariate linear regression models were created using stepwise function building to identify factors explaining variability as predictor variables for the model in which conference tweets were taken as the dependent variable.

resultsInclusion of engaged patients in health care conference social media was low compared to that of physicians and has not significantly changed over the last 3 years. When engaged patient voices are included in health care conferences, they greatly increase information flow as measured by total tweet volume (beta=301.6) compared to physicians (beta=137.3, P<.001), expand propagation of information tweeted during a conference as measured by social media impressions created (beta=1,700,000) compared to physicians (beta=270,000, P<.001), and deepen engagement in the tweet conversation as measured by replies to their tweets (beta=24.4) compared to physicians (beta=5.5, P<.001). Social network analysis of hubs and authorities revealed that patients had statistically significant higher hub scores (mean 8.26×10-4, SD 2.96×10-4) compared to other stakeholder groups' Twitter accounts (mean 7.19×10-4, SD 3.81×10-4; t273.84=4.302, P<.001).

conclusionsAlthough engaged patients are powerful accelerators of information flow, expanders of tweet propagation, and greatly deepen engagement in conversation of tweets on social media of health care conferences compared to physicians, they represent only 1.4% of the stakeholder mix of the top 100 influencers in the conversation. Health care conferences that fail to engage patients in their proceedings may risk limiting their engagement with the public, disseminating scientific information to a narrow community and slowing flow of information across social media channels.

Indexed as

CommunicationCongresses as TopicHumansPatient ParticipationPhysiciansResearch PersonnelSocial MediaSocial Networkingcongresses as topicpatient participationpatientsphysicianssocial mediasocial networking, network analysis

Identifiers

PMID28818821
PMCPMC5579322

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.