Background Social media is an effective channel for the advancement of women physicians; however, its use by women in cardiology has not been systematically studied. Our study seeks to characterize the current Women in Cardiology Twitter network. Methods and Results Six women‐specific cardiology Twitter hashtags were analyzed: #ACCWIC (American College of Cardiology Women in Cardiology), #AHAWIC (American Heart Association Women in Cardiology), #ilooklikeacardiologist, #SCAIWIN (Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions Women in Innovations), #WomeninCardiology, and #WomeninEP (Women in Electrophysiology). Twitter data from 2016 to 2019 were obtained from Symplur Signals. Quantitative and descriptive content analyses were performed. The Women in Cardiology Twitter network generated 48 236 tweets, 266 180 903 impressions, and 12 485 users. Tweets increased by 706% (from 2083 to 16 780), impressions by 207% (from 26 755 476 to 82 080 472), and users by 440% (from 796 to 4300), including a 471% user increase internationally. The network generated 6530 (13%) original tweets and 43 103 (86%) amplification tweets. Most original and amplification tweets were authored by women (81% and 62%, respectively) and women physicians (76% and 52%, respectively), with an increase in original and amplification tweets authored by academic women physicians (98% and 109%, respectively) and trainees (390% and 249%, respectively) over time. Community building, professional development, and gender advocacy were the most common tweet contents over the study period. Community building was the most common tweet category for #ACCWIC, #AHAWIC, #ilooklikeacardiologist, #SCAIWIN, and #WomeninCardiology, whereas professional development was most common for #WomeninEP. Conclusions The Women in Cardiology Twitter network has grown immensely from 2016 to 2019, with women physicians as the driving contributors. This network has become an important channel for community building, professional development, and gender advocacy discussions in an effort to advance women in cardiology.
Background Heart transplant selection committee meetings have transitioned from in-person to remote video meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic, but how this impacts committee members and patient outcomes is unknown. Objective The aim of this study is to determine the perceived impact of remote video transplant selection meetings on usability and patient care and to measure patient selection outcomes during the transition period from in-person to virtual meetings. Methods A 35-item anonymous survey was developed and distributed electronically to the heart transplant selection committee. We reviewed medical records to compare the outcomes of patients presented at in-person meetings (January-March 2020) to those presented during video meetings (March-June 2020). Results Among 83 committee members queried, 50 were regular attendees. Of the 50 regular attendees, 24 (48%) were physicians and 26 (52%) were nonphysicians, including nurses, social workers, and coordinators; 46 responses were received, 23 (50%) from physicians and 23 (50%) from nonphysicians, with 41 responses fully completed. Overall, respondents were satisfied with the videoconference format and felt that video meetings did not impact patient care and were an acceptable alternative to in-person meetings. However, 54% (22/41) preferred in-person meetings, with 71% (15/21) of nonphysicians preferring in-person meetings compared to only 35% (7/20) of physicians (P=.02). Of the 46 new patient evaluations presented, there was a statistically nonsignificant trend toward fewer patients initially declined at video meetings compared with in-person meetings (6/24, 25% compared to 10/22, 45%; P=.32). Conclusions The transition from in-person to video heart transplant selection committee meetings was well-received and did not appear to affect committee members’ perceived ability to deliver patient care. Patient selection outcomes were similar between meeting modalities.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.