Medical scientific conferences and social networks: How Russian physicians share professional knowledge?

Cover Page


Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Physicians who attend international conferences cover their content on social media. Such posts generate an active response and discussion in the comments involving other physicians. Attending all conferences when they are held simultaneously is impossible; therefore, brief communications that capture the essence of a missed presentation are in demand, generate an immediate response, and quickly raise awareness of new clinical research and scientific data. This phenomenon was not studied in Russia. However, the posts were analyzed and the activity and interest among Russian physicians were evident.

AIM: To investigate how frequently Russian physicians use available social networks to share information from scientific conferences with their colleagues.

METHODS: The search for posts for the last 4–12 months in Russian social networks such as VKontakte (vk.com), VrachiRF (vrachirf.ru), and Doctor na rabote (doktornarabote.ru) by “report”, “conference”, “congress”, “symposium”, and “medical conference” keywords was conducted. The selected recordings were classified into 6 categories (conference announcements; reports of past conferences without disclosing the content; professional journalistic reports, disclosing the content; reports from physicians, disclosing the content; videos of reports with disclosure; videos of reports without disclosure) and counted (1373 posts in total). However, the category “Reports from physicians revealing the content of some selected parts of the report and facts and ideas presented in the report” was given special attention due to useful information from the conferences and a reason to discuss in the comments. In addition, relevant studies by authors from other countries were analyzed and compared with our results.

RESULTS: A total of 1,373 posts (searched by keywords), of which 65 were in the category “Reports from physicians revealing the content of some selected parts of the report and facts and ideas presented in the report” was reviewed. The number of such posts is limited; however, this information is of interest to physicians (high number of views and dozens of comments). By comparison, the number of such messages in other countries may reach into the hundreds at a single conference alone. Based on foreign experience, the discussion of the reports on social networks helps both to spread new knowledge and facilitate joint learning and interaction among physicians, which contributes to the generation of useful material that passed peer review. Possible reasons for the low number of such posts on Russian social networks are as follows: mostly messages and discussions take place on professional social networks (VrachiRF and Doctor na rabote), foreign organizers actively encourage participants to use social networks with conference hashtags, and the multimillion-speaking English-speaking audience encourages authors to write more posts with their feedback.

CONCLUSIONS: Physicians quite rarely share facts presented at Russian scientific medical conferences on Russian social networks. However, users of social networks show considerable interest and actively discuss such posts. The study of this phenomenon will enable the assessment and effective use of its educational potential.

Full Text

BACKGROUND: Physicians who attend international conferences cover their content on social media. Such posts generate an active response and discussion in the comments involving other physicians. Attending all conferences when they are held simultaneously is impossible; therefore, brief communications that capture the essence of a missed presentation are in demand, generate an immediate response, and quickly raise awareness of new clinical research and scientific data. This phenomenon was not studied in Russia. However, the posts were analyzed and the activity and interest among Russian physicians were evident.

AIM: To investigate how frequently Russian physicians use available social networks to share information from scientific conferences with their colleagues.

METHODS: The search for posts for the last 4–12 months in Russian social networks such as VKontakte (vk.com), VrachiRF (vrachirf.ru), and Doctor na rabote (doktornarabote.ru) by “report”, “conference”, “congress”, “symposium”, and “medical conference” keywords was conducted. The selected recordings were classified into 6 categories (conference announcements; reports of past conferences without disclosing the content; professional journalistic reports, disclosing the content; reports from physicians, disclosing the content; videos of reports with disclosure; videos of reports without disclosure) and counted (1373 posts in total). However, the category “Reports from physicians revealing the content of some selected parts of the report and facts and ideas presented in the report” was given special attention due to useful information from the conferences and a reason to discuss in the comments. In addition, relevant studies by authors from other countries were analyzed and compared with our results.

RESULTS: A total of 1,373 posts (searched by keywords), of which 65 were in the category “Reports from physicians revealing the content of some selected parts of the report and facts and ideas presented in the report” was reviewed. The number of such posts is limited; however, this information is of interest to physicians (high number of views and dozens of comments). By comparison, the number of such messages in other countries may reach into the hundreds at a single conference alone. Based on foreign experience, the discussion of the reports on social networks helps both to spread new knowledge and facilitate joint learning and interaction among physicians, which contributes to the generation of useful material that passed peer review. Possible reasons for the low number of such posts on Russian social networks are as follows: mostly messages and discussions take place on professional social networks (VrachiRF and Doctor na rabote), foreign organizers actively encourage participants to use social networks with conference hashtags, and the multimillion-speaking English-speaking audience encourages authors to write more posts with their feedback.

CONCLUSIONS: Physicians quite rarely share facts presented at Russian scientific medical conferences on Russian social networks. However, users of social networks show considerable interest and actively discuss such posts. The study of this phenomenon will enable the assessment and effective use of its educational potential.

×

About the authors

Аlexandr Е. Alfimov

I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University

Author for correspondence.
Email: alex.alfimov@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9064-7881
Russian Federation, Moscow

Аnzhelika А. Trofimova

I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University

Email: alex.alfimov@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0009-0002-2372-7168
Russian Federation, Moscow

Аrseniy А. Matvienko

I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University

Email: scp.alpha9@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0009-0003-3858-0338
Russian Federation, Moscow

Мarina V. Kodalaeva

I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University

Email: marinacb66@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0003-6626-6485
Russian Federation, Moscow

References

  1. Power BJ. How to use Twitter at a Scientific Conference. mSphere. 2022;7(3):e0012122. doi: 10.1128/msphere.00121-22
  2. Katz MS, Utengen A, Anderson PF, et al. Disease-Specific Hashtags for Online Communication About Cancer Care. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(3):392–394. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.3960
  3. McGuckin DG. Live tweeting: a tool for learning and reflection. BMJ. 2016;354:i3975. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i3975
  4. Mihailidou AS, McCall D, Hiremath S, et al. Use of Social Media at Cardiovascular Congresses: Opportunities for Education and Dissemination. Curr Cardiol Rev. 2021;17(2):129–136. doi: 10.2174/1573403X16666200206103328
  5. Velin L, Lartigue JW, Johnson SA, et al. Conference equity in global health: a systematic review of factors impacting LMIC representation at global health conferences. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(1):e003455. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003455
  6. Cohen D, Allen TC, Balci S, et al. #InSituPathologists: how the #USCAP2015 meeting went viral on Twitter and founded the social media movement for the united states and Canadian academy of pathology. Mod Pathol. 2017;30:160–168. doi:10.1038/ modpathol.2016.223
  7. Leary M, McGovern S, Dainty KN, et al. Examining the Use of a Social Media Campaign to Increase Engagement for the American Heart Association 2017 Resuscitation Science Symposium. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018;7(8):e008710. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.118.008710
  8. Carroll CL, Dangayach NS, Khan R, et al. Social Media Collaboration of Critical Care Practitioners and Researchers (SoMe-CCCPR). Lessons Learned From Web- and Social Media-Based Educational Initiatives by Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Societies. Chest. 2019;155(4):671–679. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2018.12.009
  9. Carroll CL, Kaul V, Dangayach NS, et al. Comparing the Digital Footprint of Pulmonary and Critical Care Conferences on Twitter. ATS Sch. 2021;2(3):432–441. doi: 10.34197/ats-scholar.2021-0041OC
  10. Lavorgna L, Brigo F, Moccia M, et al. e-Health and multiple sclerosis: An update. Mult Scler. 2018;24(13):1657–1664. doi: 10.1177/1352458518799629
  11. Mishori R, Levy B, Donvan B. Twitter use at a family medicine conference: analyzing #STFM13. Fam Med. 2014;46:608–614.
  12. Attai DJ, Radford DM, Cowher MS. Tweeting the Meeting: Twitter Use at The American Society of Breast Surgeons Annual Meeting 2013–2016. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(10):3418–3422. doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5406-x
  13. Chaudhry A, Glodé LM, Gillman M, Miller RS. Trends in twitter use by physicians at the american society of clinical oncology annual meeting, 2010 and 2011. J Oncol Pract. 2012;8(3):173–178. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2011.000483
  14. Carroll CL, Szakmany T, Dangayach NS, et al. Growth of the Digital Footprint of the Society of Critical Care Medicine Annual Congress: 2014–2020. Crit Care Explor. 2020;2(11):e0252. doi: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000000252
  15. Søreide K, Mackenzie G, Polom K, et al. Tweeting the meeting: Quantitative and qualitative twitter activity during the 38th ESSO conference. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019;45(2):284–289. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2018.11.020
  16. Christiansen SM, Oetting TA, Herz NL, et al. Twitter at the 2014 and 2015 Annual Meetings of the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. 2016;123(8):1835–1837. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.03.012
  17. Mohammadi D. Conference organisers swimming against the tide of Twitter. BMJ. 2017;358:j3966. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j3966
  18. Chapman SJ, Mayol J, Brady RR. Twitter can enhance the medical conference experience. BMJ. 2016;354:i3973. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i3973
  19. Razzano D, Ziemba YC, Booth AL, et al. Utilizing Social Media to Spread Knowledge: The Association of Pathology Chairs Experience at the 2018 Annual Meeting. Acad Pathol. 2020;7:2374289520901342. doi: 10.1177/2374289520901342
  20. Groves T. Tweeting and rule breaking at conferences. BMJ. 2016;353:i3556. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i3556
  21. Light D, Pawlak M, de Beaux A, Brady RR. Is sharing speaker’s slides from conference presentations on social media a breach of intellectual property or a delegate’s right? Depends who you ask. Int J Surg. 2018;58:22–25. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.08.010
  22. Vukušić Rukavina T, Viskić J, Machala Poplašen L, et al. Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(11):e25770. doi: 10.2196/25770
  23. Vukušić Rukavina T, Viskić J, Machala Poplašen L, et al. Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(11):e25770. doi: 10.2196/25770
  24. Ekins S, Perlstein EO. Ten simple rules of live tweeting at scientific conferences. PLoS Comput Biol. 2014;10(8):e1003789. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003789
  25. Grajales FJ 3rd, Sheps S, Ho K, Novak-Lauscher H, Eysenbach G. Social media: a review and tutorial of applications in medicine and health care. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(2):e13. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2912
  26. Ziemba YC, Razzano D, Allen TC, et al. Social Media Engagement at Academic Conferences: Report of the Association of Pathology Chairs 2018 and 2019 Annual Meeting Social Media Committee. Acad Pathol. 2020;7:2374289520934019. doi: 10.1177/2374289520934019
  27. Parwani P, Choi AD, Lopez-Mattei J, et al. Understanding social media: Opportunities for cardiovascular medicine. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73(9):1089–1093. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.12.044
  28. Parwani P, Alasnag M, Mamas MA. Social Media for Cardiovascular Medicine: Real Reflections from Virtual Medium. Curr Cardiol Rev. 2021;17(2):116–117. doi: 10.2174/1573403X1702210311093359

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2023 Eco-Vector

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
СМИ зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор).
Регистрационный номер и дата принятия решения о регистрации СМИ: серия ПИ № ФС 77 - 79539 от 09 ноября 2020 г.


This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies