A Primer on Social Media for Plastic Surgeons: What Do I Need to Know About Social Media and How Can It Help My Practice?

The Top 100 Social Media Influencers in Plastic Surgery on Twitter: Who Should You Be Following?

BACKGROUND

Recent studies demonstrate that board-certified plastic surgeons are underrepresented amongst individuals posting public-directed marketing plastic surgery-related content on Instagram. However, peer-to-peer and education-based social media influence has not been studied. Twitter is a social media platform has been suggested to be useful for educating the masses and connecting with colleagues.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study is to identify the top influencers in plastic surgery on Twitter, characterize who they are, and relate their social media influence to academic influence.

METHODS

Twitter influence scores for the topic search "plastic surgery" were collected in July 2017 using Right Relevance software. The accounts associated with the highest influencer scores were linked to individual names, status as a plastic surgeon, board certification, location, and academic h-index.

RESULTS

The top 100 Twitter influencers in plastic surgery are presented. Seventy-seven percent of the top influencers are trained as plastic surgeons or facial plastic surgeons. Sixty-one percent of influencers are board-certified plastic surgeons or board-eligible/future eligible trainees. International plastic surgeons made up 16% of influencers. Other medical doctors made up another 10%. The other 13% of influencers were nonphysicians. Three-quarters of social media influencers were physically located in the United States. Academic h-index of social media influencers ranged from 0 to 62 (mean, 8.6).

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that the top plastic surgery social media influencers on Twitter are predominantly board-certified or eligible plastic surgeons and physically based in the United States. This study also provides the influencer network for other plastic surgeons to engage with to improve their own influence within the plastic surgery social media sphere.

Evaluation of Information Sources in Plastic Surgery Decision-making

Background

Today, patients can access a myriad of information sources regarding plastic surgery procedures prior to meeting with a surgeon. Despite their widespread use, the role of these sources in a patient’s decision-making remains undefined. We hypothesized that the physician remains the key information source for patients making surgical decisions in plastic surgery, but that other sources may deliver important insights and prove helpful to varying degrees. We also explored motivations for this outside information search and any differences in perceived value among patients.

Methods

We administered a survey regarding various information sources to our breast reconstruction, reduction, and abdominoplasty patients. Responses were compared between surgery groups and demographic groups. Ordinal logistic regression analysis was used to determine the impact of patient characteristics on helpfulness rank of different sources.

Results

Survey results were obtained from 58 patients, of whom 10 (17.2%) had abdominoplasty, 35 (60.3%) breast reconstruction, and 13 (22.4%) breast reduction. The most popular information sources prior to the first surgical appointment were Internet searches (56.9%) and family/friends/other patients (39.7%). After the initial appointment, the most useful sources were plastic surgeons (84.5%), and the Internet (36.2%). Most patients (73.5%) still sought outside information after their appointment.

On a Likert-type scale of helpfulness, plastic surgeons ranked 4.28/5, followed by the web-based patient education platform, 3.73 and the Internet, 3.6. A total of 63% of participants listed plastic surgeons as their single most important source of information.

In ordinal logistic regression analysis, non-white race was significantly associated with higher rank of surgeon helpfulness (p < 0.05). Relative to low-income patients, income $50-100k (p < 0.05) and $100k+ (p < 0.05) were associated with lower rank of surgeon helpfulness.

Conclusions

Most patients seek outside information prior to visiting with a surgeon from the Internet, social media, or family and friends. Patients consider plastic surgeons their most valuable information source overall, though still in need of supplementation for varying reasons. Additionally, certain demographic differences affect patient perception of information sources, and this is an important factor for surgeons to consider as they approach educating patients.

Social Media Return on Investment: How Much is it Worth to My Practice?

BACKGROUND

Plastic surgeons are rapidly integrating social media into their practices and recent articles on the subject have exploded in the literature. Although social media is being evaluated as a tool, few have actually been able to quantify the impact of social media on a practice.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the return on investment for social media in a plastic surgery practice.

METHODS

The ideal method for this type of study is a new practice, without preexisting clients and with a broad approach to marketing to examine the effects of multiple marketing tools. In this study, we profile a start-up plastic surgery practice in Beverly Hills, Los Angeles.

RESULTS

In this study, we report practice demographics as well as one year of income, broken down by the referral source for each patient. The dollar amount returned was reported for several social media resources and other internet-based marketing tools.

CONCLUSIONS

Social media has a relatively high return on investment, and to date this is the first study to transparently quantify the value of social media in plastic surgery.

Plastic Surgery-Related Hashtag Utilization on Instagram: Implications for Education and Marketing

BACKGROUND

Recent data suggest patients are seeking aesthetic surgery to improve their appearance on Instagram and other social media. Despite the rising influence of Instagram in plastic surgery, few academic publications address Instagram, let alone evaluate its utilization in plastic surgery.

OBJECTIVES

We set out to answer the following three questions: 1) what plastic surgery-related content is being posted to Instagram; 2) who is posting this content; and 3) what specific hashtags are they using?

METHODS

Our study queried 21 Instagram plastic surgery-related hashtags. Content analysis was used to qualitatively evaluate each of the nine "top" posts associated with each hashtag (189 posts). Duplicate posts and those not relevant to plastic surgery were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 1,789,270 posts utilized the 21 hashtags sampled in this study. Of the top 189 posts for these 21 queried hashtags, 163 posts met inclusion criteria. Plastic surgeons eligible for membership in American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ASAPS) accounted for only 17.8% of top posts, whereas noneligible physicians accounted for 26.4%. All nonplastic surgery trained physicians marketed themselves as "cosmetic surgeons." Nine top posts (5.5%) were by nonphysicians, including dentists, spas with no associated physician, and a hair salon. The majority of these posts were self-promotional (67.1%) as opposed to educational (32.9%). Board-certified plastic surgeons were significantly more likely to post educational content to Instagram as compared to nonplastic surgeons (62.1% vs 38.1%, P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

ASAPS eligible board-certified plastic surgeons are underrepresented amongst physicians posting top plastic surgery-related content to Instagram.

Reputation Management and Content Control: An Analysis of Radiation Oncologists' Digital Identities

INTRODUCTION

Google is the most popular search engine in the United States, and patients are increasingly relying on online webpages to seek information about individual physicians. This study aims to characterize what patients find when they search for radiation oncologists online.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician Comparable Downloadable File was used to identify all Medicare-participating radiation oncologists in the United States and Puerto Rico. Each radiation oncologist was characterized by medical school education, year of graduation, city of practice, gender, and affiliation with an academic institution. Using a custom Google-based search engine, up to the top 10 search results for each physician were extracted and categorized as relating to: (1) physician, hospital, or health care system; (2) third-party; (3) social media; (4) academic journal articles; or (5) other.

RESULTS

Among all health care providers in the United States within CMS, 4443 self-identified as being radiation oncologists and yielded 40,764 search results. Of those, 1161 (26.1%) and 3282 (73.9%) were classified as academic and nonacademic radiation oncologists, respectively. At least 1 search result was obtained for 4398 physicians (99.0%). Physician, hospital, and health care-controlled websites (16,006; 39.3%) and third-party websites (10,494; 25.7%) were the 2 most often observed domain types. Social media platforms accounted for 2729 (6.7%) hits, and peer-reviewed academic journal websites accounted for 1397 (3.4%) results. About 6.8% and 6.7% of the top 10 links were social media websites for academic and nonacademic radiation oncologists, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Most radiation oncologists lack self-controlled online content when patients search within the first page of Google search results. With the strong presence of third-party websites and lack of social media, opportunities exist for radiation oncologists to increase their online presence to improve patient-provider communication and better the image of the overall field. We discuss strategies to improve online visibility.