Article2019

Social Media: Is the Message Reaching the Plastic Surgery Audience?

Austin D. Chen · Qing Zhao Ruan · Alexandra E.M. Bucknor · Anmol S. Chattha · Patrick P. Bletsis · Heather J. Furnas +2 more

26 citations0/0 files storedPlastic & Reconstructive Surgery

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Social Media in Health Education Health Literacy and Information Accessibility Text Readability and Simplification

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess readability of articles shared on Twitter and analyze differences between them to determine whether messages and written posts are at reading levels comprehended by the general public. METHODS: Top-rated #PlasticSurgery tweets (per Twitter algorithm) in January of 2017 were reviewed retrospectively. Text from tweeted links to full, open-access, and society/institutional patient information articles were extracted. Readability was analyzed using the following established tests: Coleman-Liau, Flesch-Kincaid, FORCAST Readability Formula, Fry Graph, Gunning Fog Index, New Dale-Chall Formula, New Fog Count, Raygor Readability Estimate, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Readability Formula. Ease-of-reading was analyzed using the Flesch Reading Ease Index. RESULTS: Of 234 unique articles, there were 101 full journal (43 percent), 65 open-access journal (28 percent), and 68 patient information (29 percent) articles. When compared using the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Readability Formula, full and open-access journal articles attained similar mean reading levels of 17.7 and 17.5, respectively (p = 0.475). In contrast, patient information articles had a significantly lower mean readability level of 13.9 (p < 0.001). Plastic surgeons posted 128 articles (55 percent) and non-plastic surgeon individuals posted 106 articles (45 percent). Mean readability levels between the two were 16.2 and 16.9, respectively (p < 0.001). All tweeted articles were above the sixth-grade recommended reading level. CONCLUSIONS: Readability of #PlasticSurgery articles may not be appropriate for many American adults. Consideration should be given to improving readability of articles targeted toward the general public to optimize delivery of social media messages.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 26 citations exist upstream.

References

2006Importance of adult literacy in understanding health disparities 2017Social Media and the Plastic Surgery Patient 2016#PlasticSurgery 2015Disease-Specific Hashtags for Online Communication About Cancer Care 2017A Primer on Social Media for Plastic Surgeons: What Do I Need to Know About Social Media and How Can It Help My Practice?2016#SocialMedia for the Academic Plastic Surgeon—Elevating the Brand 2017So, Do You Want to Be Facebook Friends? How Social Media Have Changed Plastic Surgery and Medicine Forever

Cited by

2022TikTok: Is It Time to Start Trending with #PlasticSurgery?2020Tips and Pearls on Social Media for the Plastic Surgeon 2023Which Groups of Plastic Surgery Patients Are Impacted by Social Media Use? An In-Depth Review of Social Media Engagement 2023The Readability of Patient‐Facing Social Media Posts on Common Otolaryngologic Diagnoses

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.