Thread by @netta_doc

A #tweetorial of our @JAHA_AHA #GoRedforWomen

#WomeninCardiology Twitter Network Paper

THREAD 🧵 ⤵️

https://twitter.com/netta_doc/status/1364303053482979329

We know from @SashaShillcutt & @JulieSilverMD’s @NEJM paper, that social media has become an important avenue for women physicians to gather, providing #WomeninMedicine new avenues to share information & experiences:

nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NE… #SheforShe

We wanted to better understand the #womenincardiology Twitter network – not just how many tweets, but more *how* the network is being used & if it is *useful*
 
We analyzed #ACCWIC #WomeninCardiology #ilooklikeacardiologist #AHAWIC #WomeninEP & #SCAIWIN

bit.ly/3slBgnn

Between 2016-2019 there were:

•~50,000 tweets (↑ 700%)
•>250,000,000 impressions (↑ 200%)
•~12,500 users (↑ 440% overall, with ↑470% internationally)
 
#ACCWIC generated the most tweets (61%!); #WomeninEP (3%) & #SCAIWIN (2%) had the least
 
bit.ly/3slBgnn

Interestingly:

86% of tweets generated by the WIC network were amplification tweets (76% direct retweets)

13% were original tweets

#WomeninEP had the highest proportion of original tweets (23%)

bit.ly/3slBgnn

Who tweeted in the #WomeninCardiology Network?
 
Original content:
81% 👩🏻vs 8% 👨🏻
76% 👩🏻‍⚕️ vs 7% 👨🏻‍⚕️
 
Ampilification:
62% 👩🏻vs 21% 👨🏻
52% 👩🏻‍⚕️vs 16% 👨🏻‍⚕️
 
bit.ly/3slBgnn #HeforShe

Overtime:

Original & amplification content ↑ from 👩🏻‍⚕️ (14% & 20%) & academic👩🏻‍⚕️ (98% & 109%)

In contrast, original tweets ↓ from 👨🏻(-10%) & 👨🏻‍⚕️(-67%); amplification ↓ from 👨🏻& stayed the same for👨🏻‍⚕️

bit.ly/3slBgnn
#HeforShe #SheforShe

What did the #WomeninCardiology network tweet about?
 
36% 🤝 #CommunityBuilding
27% 👩🏻‍🎓 #ProfessionalDevelopment
20% 🚺 #GenderAdvocacy
7% 📚#Education
5% 👩🏻‍🏫 #Mentorship
 
bit.ly/3slBgnn #SheforShe

Community building was highest for #ilooklikeacardiologist (42%) #WomeninCardiology (39%) & #AHAWIC (37%)
 
#WomeninEP had higher proportions of professional development (29%) & educational (16%) content

bit.ly/3slBgnn
#SheforShe

Some thoughts:

👩🏻have tended to use private/closed groups due to concerns re: harassment

Our study contrasts this. Perhaps as 👩🏻contributed more to WIC Twitter, in-network support self‐perpetuated, allowing for a comfortable forum to express opinions & thoughts

#SheforShe

Professional development tweets ↑ 66%, suggesting that a virtual network may provide #womenincardiology a novel avenue for professional opportunities usually constrained by time/distance: grants/awards, speaking engagements, rapid research dissemination & networking

#SheforShe

#WomeninEP was the only hashtag with a majority of professional development content – likely a conscientious effort to ↑ exposure to women’s achievements in EP, as only 6% of board‐certified #EPeeps are 🚺 & only 6% of recently surveyed 🚺fellows intend to pursue EP

#SheforShe

Lastly, while participation by 🚺↑ substantially, that by 🚹 ↓’d over time

IRL, when men advocate for women by visibly supporting & proactively mentoring/sponsoring, change / progress can ↑ 3x. This also further ↑s effective male allyship.

bit.ly/3slBgnn #HeforShe

Our findings emphasize the imperative need for increased support & alliance by male colleagues for the advancement of #genderequality & equity in cardiology, which could be improved both in person & in the virtual space

bit.ly/3slBgnn
#HeforShe

Thank you for reading along!

I’m grateful for all of my #WomeninCardiology co-authors and especially @NehaChandraMD & @RuthHsiaoMD for carrying this project to the finish line!

Read the whole paper here bit.ly/3slBgnn at @JAHA and RT for dissemination 💕

(And BTW here is the correct virtual abstract - mistakenly tweeted an old version!)