Abstract: PD46-08
Sources of Funding: None

Introduction

One proposed advantage of urologists' use of social media is efficient knowledge exchange by "crowdsourcing" clinical advice and community solutions to local challenges. This study examines patterns and functions of Twitter-based crowdsourcing among urologists.

Methods

A sample of Twitter users was developed using a list of U.S. urologists on Twitter from the AUA. Twitter feeds were reviewed for primary (ie, not in reply to another post) posts seeking clinical advice or input, as well as reply posts linked to primary posts of this nature. Posts by trainees and posts using the poll function were excluded. Authors' 50 most recent posts were reviewed, and eligible posts were included for analysis. Authors' demographic data were collected from public sources. When patient data was posted, we noted whether permission was cited. Content analysis was conducted by 2 reviewers; differences were resolved by consensus among all authors.

Results

After review of 98 urologists' Twitter feeds, 276 posts in 23 crowdsourcing threads were collected for analysis. The reasons for crowdsourcing fell into 4 categories: urologists requesting ideas or solutions to a clinical dilemma (82 posts, 30%); urologists requesting advice about a surgical plan (77 posts, 28%); urologists requesting colleagues' experiences with a device, medication, or finding (64 posts, 23%); and urologists wondering if colleagues would agree with a specific course of action (53 posts, 19%). Topics spanned oncology, stone disease, endourology, and reconstructive surgery. A bidirectional exchange was achieved in most queries; mean number of replies per thread was 11 (range 0-30), and mean number of authors replying to each thread was 5 (range 0-10). In threads with ≥1 reply, the author of the primary post wrote a follow-up question or comment 82% of the time. Recent completion of training (as a proxy for inexperience) did not appear to disproportionately motivate crowdsourcing; median time in practice among authors of primary posts was 7 years (range 1-22), and authors with ≤7 years in practice initiated 13 (57%) requests. Most requests were prompted by a specific patient; of the 23 threads, 15 (65%) referenced a patient or case. Among these patient-specific threads, 7 (47%) also included photos or radiographs, yet only 1 (7%) mentioned having obtained the patient's permission.

Conclusions

Urologists are now leveraging social media to crowdsource clinical guidance and experiential knowledge. As urologists' Twitter use expands, these exchanges may grow in breadth and sophistication. Public dissemination of patient data remains a concern.

Funding

None