Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Media and Social Media

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Navigating Organized Urology

  • 315 Accesses

Abstract

Social media are widely used by medical societies, healthcare providers, patients, and other stakeholders. There are multiple public-facing social networks as well as platforms specific to healthcare professionals and the majority of urologists have a social media account. Social media has many potential benefits for clinical care, research, and education along with potential risks including spread of misinformation and professional misconduct. Urologists should review the professional guidelines on social media prior to use. It is important to maintain an ongoing relationship with your institution’s media department to identify potential opportunities. When contacted by the media to participate in an interview, it is important to respond promptly to these inquiries and remember to use lay language and avoid medical jargon. These relationships are essential for urologists seeking repeated, ongoing media opportunities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Loeb S, Bayne CE, Frey C, Davies BJ, Averch TD, Woo HH, Stork B, Cooperberg MR, Griebling TL, Eggener SE. Updated survey of social media use by members of the American Urological Association. Urol Pract 2015;2:138–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. American Urological Association Social Media Best Practices. http://auanet.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=20294. Accessed 30 Sept 2018.

  3. Murphy DG, Loeb S, Basto MY, Challacombe B, Trinh QD, Leveridge M, et al. Engaging responsibly with social media: the BJUI guidelines. BJU Int. 2014;114:9–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Borgmann H, Cooperberg M, Murphy D, Loeb S, N’Dow J, Ribal MJ, et al. Online Professionalism-2018 Update of European Association of Urology (@Uroweb) recommendations on the appropriate use of social media. Eur Urol. 2018; pii: S0302–2838(18)30614-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.08.022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Borgmann H, DeWitt S, Tsaur I, Haferkamp A, Loeb S. Novel survey disseminated through Twitter supports its utility for networking, disseminating research, advocacy, clinical practice and other professional goals. Can Urol Assoc J. 2015;9:E713–7. (Journal de l’Association des urologues du Canada).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ciprut S, Curnyn C, Davuluri M, Sternberg K, Loeb S. Twitter activity associated with US news and world report reputation scores for Urology Departments. Urology. 2017;108:11–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Sternberg KM, Loeb SL, Canes D, Donnelly L, Tsai MH. The use of Twitter to facilitate sharing of clinical expertise in urology. J Am Med Inf Assoc JAMIA. 2018;25:183–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Prabhu V, Lee T, Loeb S, Holmes JH, Gold HT, Lepor H, et al. Twitter response to the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommendations against screening with prostate-specific antigen. BJU Int. 2015;116:65–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Loeb S, Sengupta S, Butaney M, Macaluso JN Jr, Czarniecki SW, Robbins R, et al. Dissemination of misinformative and biased information about prostate cancer on YouTube. Eur Urol 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Larouche M, Geoffrion R, Lazare D, Clancy A, Lee T, Koenig NA, et al. Mid-urethral slings on YouTube: quality information on the internet? Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27:903–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ibrahim AM, Lillemoe KD, Klingensmith ME, Dimick JB. Visual abstracts to disseminate research on social media: a prospective, case-control crossover study. Ann Surg. 2017;266:e46–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Nason GJ, O’Kelly F, Kelly ME, Phelan N, Manecksha RP, Lawrentschuk N, et al. The emerging use of Twitter by urological journals. BJU Int. 2015;115:486–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hayon S, Tripathi H, Stormont IM, Dunne MM, Naslund MJ, Siddiqui MM. Twitter mentions and academic citations in the urologic literature. Urology. 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Rivas JG, Socarras MR, Patruno G, Uvin P, Esperto F, Dinis PJ, et al. Perceived role of social media in urologic knowledge acquisition among young urologists: a European survey. Eur Urol Focus. 2018;4:768–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Loeb S, Roupret M, Van Oort I, N’Dow J, van Gurp M, Bloemberg J, et al. Novel use of Twitter to disseminate and evaluate adherence to clinical guidelines by the European Association of Urology. BJU Int. 2017;119:820–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Topf JM, Sparks MA, Phelan PJ, Shah N, Lerma EV, Graham-Brown MPM, et al. The evolution of the journal club: from Osler to Twitter. Am J Kidney Dis Off J Natl Kidney Found. 2017;69:827–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Koo K, Bowman MS, Ficko Z, Gormley EA. Older and wiser? Changes in unprofessional content on urologists’ social media after transition from residency to practice. BJU Int. 2018;122:337–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. van den Eijnden RJJM, Lemmens JS, Valkenburg PM. The social media disorder scale. Comput Hum Behav. 2016;61:478–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Cuellar JM, Lanman TH. “Text neck”: an epidemic of the modern era of cell phones? Spine J Off J N Am Spine Soc. 2017;17:901–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology and Population Health, New York University, New York, NY, USA

    Stacy Loeb

Authors
  1. Stacy Loeb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stacy Loeb .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA

    Stephen Y. Nakada

  2. School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA

    Sutchin R. Patel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Loeb, S. (2019). Media and Social Media. In: Nakada, S., Patel, S. (eds) Navigating Organized Urology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20434-1_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20434-1_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-20433-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-20434-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation