Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25591063›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2014

What are health-related users tweeting? A qualitative content analysis of health-related users and their messages on twitter.

Joy L Lee, Matthew DeCamp, Mark Dredze, Margaret S Chisolm, Zackary D Berger

Abstract 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 53 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

53 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Antidepressants: A content analysis of healthcare providers' tweets.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

5 authors.

Joy L LeeJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of Health Policy & Management, Baltimore, MD, United States. jllee@jhu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2589-8200

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTwitter is home to many health professionals who send messages about a variety of health-related topics. Amid concerns about physicians posting inappropriate content online, more in-depth knowledge about these messages is needed to understand health professionals' behavior on Twitter.

objectiveOur goal was to characterize the content of Twitter messages, specifically focusing on health professionals and their tweets relating to health.

methodsWe performed an in-depth content analysis of 700 tweets. Qualitative content analysis was conducted on tweets by health users on Twitter. The primary objective was to describe the general type of content (ie, health-related versus non-health related) on Twitter authored by health professionals and further to describe health-related tweets on the basis of the type of statement made. Specific attention was given to whether a tweet was personal (as opposed to professional) or made a claim that users would expect to be supported by some level of medical evidence (ie, a "testable" claim). A secondary objective was to compare content types among different users, including patients, physicians, nurses, health care organizations, and others.

resultsHealth-related users are posting a wide range of content on Twitter. Among health-related tweets, 53.2% (184/346) contained a testable claim. Of health-related tweets by providers, 17.6% (61/346) were personal in nature; 61% (59/96) made testable statements. While organizations and businesses use Twitter to promote their services and products, patient advocates are using this tool to share their personal experiences with health.

conclusionsTwitter users in health-related fields tweet about both testable claims and personal experiences. Future work should assess the relationship between testable tweets and the actual level of evidence supporting them, including how Twitter users-especially patients-interpret the content of tweets posted by health providers.

Indexed as

BloggingHealth BehaviorInternetSocial MediaConsumer Health InformationData CollectionHumanscommunicationconsumer health informaticshealth information technologysocial media

Identifiers

PMID25591063
PMCPMC4296104

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.