Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

The activity and discussion points of #Circumcision through Twitter; a microblogging platform

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 30, pages 249–252 (2018)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Objectives

Our objective was to elucidate the discussion points of circumcision on social media (SoMe) by looking at the Twitter activity.

Material and methods

Twitter searched for #circumcision hashtag via www.tweetarchivist.com, www.twitonomy.com, www.symplur.com. Total tweet numbers, most influencers, top users were documented. Tweets including female circumcision were excluded. The contents of the tweets were classified into four subgroups (medical, religious, social, and political) by two independent reviewers. All kinds of tweet activities were statistically analyzed.

Results

A total of 9795 users generated 15,989 tweets about circumcision in a 1 month period. Mean daily tweet activity was 532 for #circumcision. The content analysis revealed that 2224 (15.8%) medical, 1133 (8.0%) religious, 323 (2.2%) social and 10,470 (74.0%) political tweets have been sent out by the users. Contributors originated from 174 countries from 6 continents. Media organizations were accounted for 52% of the top 25 influencers in circumcision hashtag. The most common hashtags accompanying #circumcision were #HIV (4.9%), #babiesgotherpes (3.3%), #muslim (1.8%), #malegenitalmutilation (1.6%) respectively.

Conclusions

There is an increasing discussion about circumcision through SoMe . Our results provided that the discussion points are mostly driven by the media and the activists. The political tweets have been found to be the center of the discussion. SoMe usage should be increased by medical professionals for true information of the public.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Male circumcision: global trends and determinants of prevalence, safety and acceptability. IWHO Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data 2007. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/43749/97892?sequence=1

  2. Merrill CT, Nagamine M, Steiner C. Circumcisions Performed in U.S. Community Hospitals, 2005. HCUP Statistical Brief #45. January 2008. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb45.pdf

  3. Loeb S. Social media makes global urology meetings truly global: the influence of Twitter. BJU Int. 2015;115:175.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dunsmuir WD, Gordon EM. The history of circumcision. BJU Int. 1999;83:1–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Coutinho K, Stensland K, Hyun G. Circumcision on the web: a comparison of quality, content, and bias online. J Pediatr Urol. 2014;10:688–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gómez Rivas J, Rodríguez Socarrás M, Tortolero Blanco L. Social Media in Urology: opportunities, applications, appropriate use and new horizons. Cent Eur J Urol. 2016;69:293–8.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Rivas JG, Socarras MR, Patruno G, Uvin P, Esperto F, Dinis PJ, et al. Perceived Role of Social Media in Urologic Knowledge Acquisition Among Young Urologists: A European Survey. Eur Urol Focus. 2017 Jul 27. pii: S2405-456930168-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2016.11.010.

  8. Rouprêt M, Morgan TM, Bostrom PJ, Cooperberg MR, Kutikov A, Linton KD, et al. European Association of Urology (@Uroweb): recommendations on the appropriate use of social media. Eur Urol. 2014;66:628–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Borgmann H, Loeb S, Salem J, Thomas C, Haferkamp A, Murphy DG, et al. Activity, content, contributors, and influencers of the twitter discussion on urologic oncology. Urol Oncol. 2016;34:377–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. O’Kelly F, Nason GJ, Manecksha RP, Cascio S, Quinn FJ, Leonard M, et al. The effect of social media (#SoMe) on journal impact factor and parental awareness in paediatric urology. J Pediatr Urol. 2017;13:513.e1–.e7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Wilkinson SE, Basto MY, Perovic G, Lawrentschuk N, Murphy DG. The social media revolution is changing the conference experience: analytics and trends from eight international meetings. BJU Int. 2015;115:839–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Salem J, Borgmann H, Bultitude M. et al. Online discussion on #KidneyStones: a longitudinal assessment of activity, users and content. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0160863

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Taha Ucar, Meftun Culpan, Turhan Caskurlu, M.İhsan Karaman & Mesrur Selcuk Silay

Authors
  1. Taha Ucar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Meftun Culpan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Turhan Caskurlu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M.İhsan Karaman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mesrur Selcuk Silay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mesrur Selcuk Silay.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ucar, T., Culpan, M., Caskurlu, T. et al. The activity and discussion points of #Circumcision through Twitter; a microblogging platform. Int J Impot Res 30, 249–252 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-018-0058-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-018-0058-y

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links