Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:08:48.403Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Makes a Tweet Fly? Analysis of Twitter Messaging at Four Infection Control Conferences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 August 2017

Brett G. Mitchell ,
Philip L. Russo ,
Jonathan A. Otter ,
Martin A. Kiernan  and
Landon Aveling
Brett G. Mitchell*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Arts, Nursing and Theology, Avondale College of Higher Education, Wahroonga, New South Wales, Australia School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia
Philip L. Russo
Affiliation:
Faculty of Arts, Nursing and Theology, Avondale College of Higher Education, Wahroonga, New South Wales, Australia School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia School of Nursing and Midwifery, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia
Jonathan A. Otter
Affiliation:
National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Healthcare-Associated Infection and Antimicrobial Resistance, Imperial College London in partnership with Public Health England (PHE), London, United Kingdom
Martin A. Kiernan
Affiliation:
Richard Wells Research Centre, College of Nursing, Midwifery and Healthcare, The University of West London, United Kingdom
Landon Aveling
Affiliation:
Faculty of Arts, Nursing and Theology, Avondale College of Higher Education, Wahroonga, New South Wales, Australia
*
Address correspondence to: Brett G. Mitchell, School of Nursing, Clinical Education Centre, 185 Fox Valley Road, Wahroonga, NSW, Australia, 2076 (brett.mitchell@avondale.edu.au and Twitter: @1healthau).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To examine tweeting activity, networks, and common topics mentioned on Twitter at 4 international infection control and infectious disease conferences.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study.

METHODS

An independent company was commissioned to undertake a Twitter ‘trawl’ each month between July 1, 2016, and November 31, 2016. The trawl identified any tweets that contained the official hashtags of the conferences for (1) the UK Infection Prevention Society, (2) IDWeek 2016, (3) the Federation of Infectious Society/Hospital Infection Society, and (4) the Australasian College for Infection Prevention and Control. Topics from each tweet were identified, and an examination of the frequency and timing of tweets was performed. A social network analysis was performed to illustrate connections between users. A multivariate binary logistic regression model was developed to explore the predictors of ‘retweets.’

RESULTS

In total, 23,718 tweets were identified as using 1 of the 2 hashtags of interest. The results demonstrated that the most tweets were posted during the conferences. Network analysis demonstrated a diversity of twitter networks. A link to a web address was a significant predictor of whether a tweet would be retweeted (odds ratio [OR], 2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9–2.1). Other significant factors predicting a retweet included tweeting on topics such as Clostridium difficile (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.7–2.4) and the media (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.6–2.0). Tweets that contained a picture were significantly less likely to be retweeted (OR, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.05–0.08).

CONCLUSION

Twitter is a useful tool for information sharing and networking at infection control conferences.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:1271–1276

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 38 , Issue 11 , November 2017 , pp. 1271 - 1276
Copyright
© 2017 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Goff, DA, Kullar, R, Newland, JG. Review of Twitter for infectious diseases clinicians: useful or a waste of time? Clin Infect Dis 2015;60:1533–1540.Google ScholarPubMed
2. Kaplan, AM, Haenlein, M. Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons 2010;53:59–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Moorhead, SA, Hazlett, DE, Harrison, L, Carroll, JK, Irwin, A, Hoving, C. A new dimension of health care: systematic review of the uses, benefits, and limitations of social media for health communication. J Med Internet Res 2013;15:e85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Liu, S, Volcic, Z, Gallois, C. Introducing Intercultural Communication: Global Cultures and Contexts. London: Sage; 2014.Google Scholar
5. Chung, A, Woo, H. Twitter in urology and other surgical specialties at global conferences. ANZ J Surg 2016;86:224–227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Kiernan, M, Wigglesworth, N. The use of social media in the dissemination of information from scientific meetings. J Infect Prev 2011;12:224–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Randviir, EP, Ilingworth, SM, Baker, MJ, Cude, M, Banks, CE. Twittering about research: A case study of the world’s first twitter poster competition. F1000Research 2015;4:798.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Cochran, A, Kao, LS, Gusani, NJ, Suliburk, JW, Nwomeh, BC. Use of Twitter to document the 2013 Academic Surgical Congress. J Surg Res 2014;190:36–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Mishori, R, Levy, B, Donvan, B. Twitter use at a family medicine conference. Fam Med 2014;46:608–614.Google Scholar
10. Borgatti, S, Everett, M., Johnson, J. Analyzing Social Networks. London: Sage; 2013.Google Scholar
11. Hansen, D, Shneiderman, B, Smith, MA. Analyzing Social Media Networks with NodeXL: Insights from a Connected World. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann; 2010.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Mitchell supplementary material 1

Mitchell supplementary material

Download Mitchell supplementary material 1(File)
File 21.1 KB
Supplementary material: File

Mitchell supplementary material 2

Mitchell supplementary material

Download Mitchell supplementary material 2(File)
File 226.3 KB