Logo image
Back
Who engages with patient-centered, peer-reviewed publications? Tweeting of JAMA Patient Pages
Abstract   Peer reviewed

Who engages with patient-centered, peer-reviewed publications? Tweeting of JAMA Patient Pages

Karen L Woolley, Elise Magatova, Yukiko Homma, Emma A Platt and Paul Lane
Current Medical Research and Opinion, Vol.32(Supplement 1), pp.S14-S15
Annual Meeting of International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP), 12th (National Harbour, United States, 11-Apr-2016–13-Apr-2016)
2016
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1185/03007995.2016.1152850
url
https://doi.org/10.1185/03007995.2016.1152850View
Published Version

Abstract

Clinical Sciences
Objective: Since 1998, JAMA has published peer-reviewed Patient Pages to help healthcare professionals (HCPs) promote credible information to patients. With patient empowerment and social media, the public, rather than HCPs, may be the primary promotors of such publications. Publication professionals are becoming more involved in patient-centric publications and should know who engages with such publications. We investigated engagement with JAMA's Patient Pages, based on Twitter activity. Research design and methods: For this controlled cross-sectional analysis, sequential (November 2013-November 2015; n = 86) free-access JAMA Patient Pages were matched for topic and time to JAMA articles (controlling for journal; n = 86) and to free-access, MEDLINE-listed articles (controlling for access; n = 86). Altmetric and Twitter data were analyzed by an independent academic statistician. Results: For each of the 3 publication types, the median number of tweets was significantly higher for the public compared with HCPs: Patient Pages (34 vs 8; P50.001); JAMA articles (28 vs 9; P50.001); MEDLINE articles (1 vs 0; P = 0.002). The median number of tweeters, median number of followers, median Altmetric scores, and percent of articles having the US as the top tweeting country were significantly higher for Patient Pages (49; 226,720; 35; 93%) and JAMA articles (47; 214,773; 42; 88%) compared with MEDLINE articles (1; 183; 1; 23%); for each outcome, the difference between Patient Pages or JAMA articles vs MEDLINE was P50.001; no significant differences were detected between Patient Pages vs JAMA articles. Conclusions: Members of the public can be more powerful promoters of peerreviewed publications, whether patient-centric or not, than HCPs. Tweeters from the US were the strongest promoters of JAMA's patient-centric, peer-reviewed publications.

Details

Metrics

301 Record Views
Logo image