4.2 Article

Social media awareness among non-urogynecologists regarding the current mesh discussions in urogynecology: a survey study

Journal

INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL
Volume 31, Issue 6, Pages 1231-1243

Publisher

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s00192-020-04242-3

Keywords

Mesh complications; Mesh discussion; Practical survey study

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction and hypothesis There has been a great deal of discussion about mesh complications in urogynecology in recent years. However, awareness of other doctors who are not urogynecologists is unknown. This study was aimed at determining the level of awareness of mesh discussions among medical doctors whose specialty is not urology or gynecology. Methods A survey study was administered, and all medical doctors, except gynecologists and urologists, were invited. Respondent doctors were classified into four groups: King's College Hospital (KCH), UK; Uludag University Hospital (UUH), Turkey; the United States (USA); and the world (WORLD). The primary outcome was the awareness of mesh discussion in urogynecology, and the secondary outcome was the social media awareness of the mesh discussion. Results 1231 doctors responded to the survey. The awareness of the current mesh problems among the respondent doctors was 15.8% in KCH, 15.4% in UUH, 26.9% in the USA, and 16.2% in WORLD. The social media awareness about mesh problems was 20.8% in KCH, 20.3% in UUH, 32.8% in the USA, and 20.6% in WORLD. Although there were no differences among three of the groups with regard to primary and secondary outcomes, the USA group score was statistically significantly higher than the others. Conclusions Social media can influence doctors' thinking on controversial academic issues. In this survey study, non-urogynecologist doctors in the USA cohort have higher awareness levels and a higher social media awareness level than other groups.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available