VISFO, Mill Royd St., HD6 1EY, Brighouse, UK.
Institute of Digital Healthcare, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Pharmaceut Med. 2021 Nov;35(6):353-365. doi: 10.1007/s40290-021-00408-6. Epub 2021 Dec 7.
Engaging influential stakeholders in meaningful exchange is essential for pharmaceutical companies aiming to improve care. At a time where opportunities for face-to-face engagement are limited, the ability to interact, learn and generate actionable insights through digital channels such as Twitter, is of considerable value.
The aim of this study was to evaluate digital engagement among global diabetes mellitus researchers.
We identified every global tweet (20,614,515) and scientific publication (44,135) regarding diabetes mellitus from 1 August 2018 to 1 August 2020. Through author matching we combined datasets, resulting in a list of digitally active scientific authors. Generalised linear modelling identified factors predicting their digital engagement.
Globally, 2686 diabetes researchers used Twitter to discuss the management of diabetes mellitus, posting 110,346 diabetes-related tweets. As Twitter followers increased, so did tweet frequency (p < 0.001), retweets (p < 0.001) and replies (p < 0.001) to their content. Publication count (overall/per month) and proportion of first/last authorships were unrelated to tweet frequency and the likelihood of being retweeted or replied to (p > 0.05). Those with the most academic co-authors were significantly less likely to tweet than those with smaller networks (< 50; p = 0.001). Finally, those publishing most frequently on specific themes, including insulin (p = 0.041) and paediatrics (p < 0.001), were significantly more likely to tweet about these themes.
Academic expertise and seniority cannot be assumed as proxies for digital influence. Those aiming to promote science and obtain digital insights regarding condition management should consider looking beyond well-known 'key opinion leaders' to perhaps lesser known 'digital opinion leaders' with smaller academic networks, who are likely to specialise in the delivery of highly specific content to captive audiences.
对于旨在改善医疗的制药公司来说，让有影响力的利益相关者参与有意义的交流至关重要。在面对面交流机会有限的情况下，通过 Twitter 等数字渠道进行互动、学习和生成可操作的见解的能力具有相当大的价值。
本研究旨在评估全球糖尿病研究人员的数字参与度。
我们从 2018 年 8 月 1 日至 2020 年 8 月 1 日，确定了全球关于糖尿病的每一条推文（20,614,515 条）和科学出版物（44,135 篇）。通过作者匹配，我们合并了数据集，得出了一份数字活跃的科学作者名单。广义线性模型确定了预测他们数字参与度的因素。
在全球范围内，2686 名糖尿病研究人员使用 Twitter 讨论糖尿病的管理，发布了 110,346 条与糖尿病相关的推文。随着 Twitter 关注者的增加，推文频率（p<0.001）、转发（p<0.001）和回复（p<0.001）也随之增加。出版物数量（总体/每月）和第一/最后作者的比例与推文频率以及被转发和回复的可能性无关（p>0.05）。拥有最多学术合著者的人比网络较小的人（<50；p=0.001）更不可能发推文。最后，那些在特定主题上发表频率最高的人，包括胰岛素（p=0.041）和儿科（p<0.001），更有可能发布关于这些主题的推文。
学术专长和资历不能被视为数字影响力的代理。那些旨在促进科学发展并获得有关疾病管理的数字见解的人，应该考虑超越知名的“主要意见领袖”，寻找那些网络较小但可能更了解特定主题的“数字意见领袖”，这些人可能专注于向特定受众提供高度特定的内容。
