S. B. Bryczkowski1, C. Jones4, N. J. Gusani3, L. Kao5, B. C. Nwomeh4, K. Reid Lombardo7, M. E. Zenilman6, A. Cochran2 1New Jersey Medical School,Surgery,Newark, NJ, USA 2University Of Utah,Surgery,Salt Lake City, UT, USA 3Penn State University College Of Medicine,Surgery,Hershey, PA, USA 4Ohio State University,Surgery,Columbus, OH, USA 5University Of Texas Health Science Center At Houston,Surgery,Houston, TX, USA 6Johns Hopkins University School Of Medicine,Surgery,Baltimore, MD, USA 7Mayo Clinic,Surgery,Rochester, MN, USA
Introduction: The International General Surgery Journal Club (IGSJC) is a Twitter-based journal club that was initiated in March, 2014. This monthly asynchronous moderated event extends over 2 days using a pre-identified freely available high-impact general surgery article for discussion. An author of the selected article and a moderator help stimulate discussion during the designated time period for the journal club. The purpose of this study was to identify characteristics of “lurkers”, those who followed the discussion but did not post tweets using the #IGSJC hashtag, in an effort to increase active participation from this group.
Methods: Symplur.com transcripts were reviewed to identify lurker data and the number of tweets posted using the #IGSJC hashtag during monthly discussions. Lurkers were defined as followers of the @IGSJC Twitter account who did not tweet during monthly discussions. Followers were classified by their level-of-training and geographic location according to information provided in their Twitter profile augmented by Internet search. Percent of lurkers was calculated by dividing the number of lurkers by the number of followers.
Results: During the four IGSJC discussions from March to June 2014 there were 159 unique Twitter users from more than 14 countries who posted 2,848 tweets using the #IGSJC hashtag; 452 unique followers of the @IGSJC account were identified. Of those followers whose roles could be identified (n=409, 90%), trainees (medical students, residents, and fellows) were the group most likely to lurk (99/108, 92%), (Table 1). Other followers who lurked included associations, nurses, patient advocates, and marketers (83%). Attending physicians were the most likely to contribute and the least likely to lurk (77%).
Conclusion: Of those whose characteristics could be identified, trainees including medical students, residents and fellows, were the most likely Twitter users to lurk without actively tweeting during the moderated monthly IGSJC discussions. The basis for non-contribution by trainees may be perceived lack of expertise in a topic area, fear of questioning established surgeons and researchers, or simply a product of many Twitter users’ lack of active tweeting. Using simple metrics as we have, it is not possible to evaluate the impact of the IGSJC on lurkers. Future directions for increasing IGSJC participation include surveying followers of the IGSJC Twitter account and directly encouraging trainees to tweet during the monthly IGSJC discussions.
