ArticleImplementation science : IS2018
Twitter use at the 2016 Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation in Health: analyzing #DIScience16.
Article in Implementation science : IS, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perceived impact of physiotherapy-related debates on the social platform "X" on physiotherapists' professional development and knowledge acquisition: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2025Observational
- Impact of Tweet Content on the Number of Retweets - "Tweet the Meeting 2022".Circulation reports · 2023Article
- "Loved ones are not 'visitors' in a patient's life"-The importance of including loved ones in the patient's hospital stay: An international Twitter study of #HospitalsTalkToLovedOnes in times of COVID-19.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Surgeons and social media: The use of twitter hashtags at the Academic Surgical Congress 2015-2019: A cross sectional study.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2020Article
- Social Media Coverage of the International Society of Nephrology World Congress of Nephrology 2019: Exploring Novel Strategies.Kidney international reports · 2020Article
- [The Early Mobilization Network].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2020Review
- The "secret sauce" for a mentored training program: qualitative perspectives of trainees in implementation research for cancer control.BMC medical education · 2020Article
- A proof-of-concept study of extracting patient histories for rare/intractable diseases from social media.Genomics & informatics · 2020Article
- Communication About Hereditary Cancers on Social Media: A Content Analysis of Tweets About Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer and Lynch Syndrome.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2020Article
- Article
- Social Media Engagement at Academic Conferences: Report of the Association of Pathology Chairs 2018 and 2019 Annual Meeting Social Media Committee.Academic pathologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPoor dissemination of research findings may hamper the reach and impact of scientific discoveries. One key emerging platform for research dissemination is social media, including Twitter. While Twitter and other social media are increasingly being used to disseminate research content presented during scientific conferences, few studies have investigated the extent to which these tools are used throughout conferences and how they are being used. The aim for this study was to better understand the use of Twitter during the 2016 Annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation in Health (D&I conference).
methodsWe performed an analysis of Twitter use before, during, and after the 2016 D&I conference, which took place from December 14 to 15. All tweets (posted between December 1 and 31) that included the conference-specific hashtag (#DIScience16) were assessed. We identified 2639 tweets using the data analytics platform NUVI. We used NUVI software to generate statistics about reach, influence, mentions, and origin of the tweets. Individual tweet content was also assessed using DiscoverText and coded for disease category, implementation outcomes discussed, category of tweet, and conference track.
resultsA total of 2639 tweets were analyzed; 89.1% of the tweets were posted during the conference. A total of 389 unique users participated on Twitter, representing 31 states and 22 locations outside of the USA. Most (56.8%) tweets were re-tweets and were used for scientific promotion (50.6%). Key conference speakers and implementation outcomes (de-implementation, adaptation, and fidelity) were commonly discussed.
conclusionsOur findings reveal that Twitter was used as a platform during the D&I conference, both to facilitate conference discussion and to promote scientific ideas. This work contributes to the existing data analytics and implementation science literature in two major ways: (1) by advancing knowledge of how social media is used during annual academic conferences and (2) by providing a deeper understanding of themes and emerging areas of interest in the dissemination and implementation sciences. Knowing specific topics of interest can help planners and scientists better understand the landscape of current and future implementation research and encourage new research dissemination strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.