ArticleFrontiers in public health2015
Capturing Public Opinion on Public Health Topics: A Comparison of Experiences from a Systematic Review, Focus Group Study, and Analysis of Online, User-Generated Content.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Artificial Intelligence Tools With Human Coding for Sentiment, Topic, and Thematic Analysis Tasks of Public Health Datasets During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Australia: Case Study.Online journal of public health informatics · 2026Article
- A netnographic analysis of online active commentaries on Malaysia's tobacco generation end game.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Review
- Public Opinions About Palliative and End-of-Life Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Twitter-Based Content Analysis.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Deep Neural Networks for Simultaneously Capturing Public Topics and Sentiments During a Pandemic: Application on a COVID-19 Tweet Data Set.JMIR medical informatics · 2022Article
- Internet Public Opinion Diffusion Mechanism in Public Health Emergencies: Based on Entropy Flow Analysis and Dissipative Structure Determination.Frontiers in public health · 2021Article
- Public acceptability of public health policy to improve population health: A population-based survey.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Article
- Pharmacoepidemiologic Evaluation of Birth Defects from Health-Related Postings in Social Media During Pregnancy.Drug safety · 2019Article
- Re-emerging Lassa fever outbreaks in Nigeria: Re-enforcing "One Health" community surveillance and emergency response practice.Infectious diseases of poverty · 2018Article
- Article
- Article
- Acceptability of Financial Incentives for Health Behaviours: A Discrete Choice Experiment.PloS one · 2016Article
- Older Americans' Perceptions of the Federal Government's Pandemic Response: Voices From the COVID-19 Coping Study.Research on agingArticle
- Parental Preferences for the Organization of Preschool Vaccination Programs Including Financial Incentives: A Discrete Choice Experiment.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCapturing public opinion toward public health topics is important to ensure that services, policy, and research are aligned with the beliefs and priorities of the general public. A number of approaches can be used to capture public opinion.
methodsWe are conducting a program of work on the effectiveness and acceptability of health promoting financial incentive interventions. We have captured public opinion on financial incentive interventions using three methods: a systematic review, focus group study, and analysis of online user-generated comments to news media reports. In this short editorial-style piece, we compare and contrast our experiences with these three methods.
resultsEach of these methods had their advantages and disadvantages. Advantages include tailoring of the research question for systematic reviews, probing of answers during focus groups, and the ability to aggregate a large data set using online user-generated content. However, disadvantages include needing to update systematic reviews, participants conforming to a dominant perspective in focus groups, and being unable to collect respondent characteristics during analysis of user-generated online content. That said, analysis of user-generated online content offers additional time and resource advantages, and we found it elicited similar findings to those obtained via more traditional methods, such as systematic reviews and focus groups.
conclusionA number of methods for capturing public opinions on public health topics are available. Public health researchers, policy makers, and practitioners should choose methods appropriate to their aims. Analysis of user-generated online content, especially in the context of news media reports, may be a quicker and cheaper alternative to more traditional methods, without compromising on the breadth of opinions captured.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.