Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25289463›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2014

Tweet content related to sexually transmitted diseases: no joking matter.

Elia Gabarron, J Artur Serrano, Rolf Wynn, Annie Y S Lau

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
15.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 61 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. [Sexual health information on social media: a systematic scoping review].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Measures of the Degree of Departure from Ignorable Sample Selection.Journal of survey statistics and methodology · 2020
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Special Issue on E-Health Services.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Diabetes on Twitter: A Sentiment Analysis.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2019
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Elia GabarronNST-Norwegian Centre for Integrated Care and Telemedicine, University Hospital North Norway, Tromsø, Norway. elia.gabarron@telemed.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7188-550X
UiT The Arctic University of Norway · NOUniversity Hospital of North Norway · NOUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOnline social media, such as the microblogging site Twitter, have become a space for speedy exchange of information regarding sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), presenting a potential risk environment for how STDs are portrayed. Examining the types of "tweeters" (users who post messages on Twitter) and the nature of "tweet" messages is important for identifying how information related to STDs is posted in online social media.

objectiveThe intent of the study was to describe the types of message emitters on Twitter in relation to two different STDs-chlamydia and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-as well as the nature of content tweeted, including how seriously the topic was treated.

methodsWe used the Twitter search engine to look for tweets posted worldwide from August 1-7, 2013, and from September 1-7, 2013, containing the words "chlamydia" or "HIV", and the hashtags "#chlamydia" or "#HIV". Tweeters were classified by two independent reviewers according to the type of avatar of the user (human, logo, or fantasy), the identification of the emitter (identifiable, semi-identifiable, or non-identifiable), and the source (private company, general media, scientific media, non-governmental, individual account, academic institution, government department, or undefined). Tweet messages were also independently classified according to their nature (serious or jokes/funny), and whether their main message was factual or of a personal nature/experience.

resultsA total of 694 tweets were posted by 426 different users during the first 7 days of August and September, containing the hashtags and/or simple words "chlamydia" and/or "HIV". Jokes or funny tweets were more frequently posted by individual users (89%, 66/74), with a human avatar (81%, 60/74), from a non-identifiable user (72%, 53/74), and they were most frequently related to chlamydia (76%, 56/74). Serious tweets were most frequently posted by the general media (20.6%, 128/620), using a logo avatar (66.9%, 415/620), and with identifiable accounts (85.2%, 528/620). No government departments, non-governmental organizations, scientific media, or academic institutions posted a joke on STDs. A total of 104 of these analyzed tweets were re-tweeted messages, belonging to 68 unique tweets. The content was serious (99%, 67/68), factual (90%, 52/58), and about HIV (85%, 58/68).

conclusionsSocial media such as Twitter may be an important source of information regarding STDs provided that the topic is presented appropriately. Reassuringly, the study showed that almost 9/10 of tweets on STDs (chlamydia and HIV) were of serious content, and many of the tweets that were re-tweeted were facts. The jokes that were tweeted were mainly about chlamydia, and posted by non-identifiable emitters. We believe social media should be used to an even larger extent to disseminate correct information about STDs.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeSexually Transmitted DiseasesHumansSocial MediachlamydiaHIVInternetTwitter messaging

Identifiers

PMID25289463
PMCPMC4210955
OpenAlexW1996037709

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.