Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28596149›Full record

ArticleJMIR public health and surveillance2017

Measuring Audience Engagement for Public Health Twitter Chats: Insights From #LiveFitNOLA.

Kristina M Rabarison, Merriah A Croston, Naomi K Englar, Connie L Bish, Shelbi M Flynn, Carolyn C Johnson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Artificial Intelligence in Public Health and Epidemiology.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2018
    Review
  17. Article
  18. 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

6 authors.

Kristina M Rabarison *Centers for Disease Control and PreventionDivision of Population HealthAtlanta, GAUnited States.ORCID 0000-0002-9384-0118
Merriah A CrostonCenters for Disease Control and PreventionDivision of Population HealthAtlanta, GAUnited States.ORCID 0000-0003-3633-7732
Naomi K Englar *Tulane Univeristy School of Public Health and Tropical MedicineTulane Prevention Research CenterNew Orleans, LAUnited States.ORCID 0000-0003-1585-479X
Connie L Bish *Centers for Disease Control and PreventionDivision of Population HealthAtlanta, GAUnited States.ORCID 0000-0003-0985-6043
Shelbi M Flynn *City of New Orleans Health DepartmentNew Orleans, LAUnited States.ORCID 0000-0001-7330-9859
Carolyn C Johnson *Tulane Univeristy School of Public Health and Tropical MedicineTulane Prevention Research CenterNew Orleans, LAUnited States.ORCID 0000-0002-3903-8458

Funding

ACL HHS U48DP005050
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLittle empirical evidence exists on the effectiveness of using Twitter as a two-way communication tool for public health practice, such as Twitter chats.

objectiveWe analyzed whether Twitter chats facilitate engagement in two-way communications between public health entities and their audience. We also describe how to measure two-way communications, incoming and outgoing mentions, between users in a protocol using free and publicly available tools (Symplur, OpenRefine, and Gephi).

methodsWe used a mixed-methods approach, social network analysis, and content analysis. The study population comprised individuals and organizations participating or who were mentioned in the first #LiveFitNOLA chat, during a 75-min period on March 5, 2015, from 12:00 PM to 1:15 PM Central Time. We assessed audience engagement in two-way communications with two metrics: engagement ratio and return on engagement (ROE).

resultsThe #LiveFitNOLA chat had 744 tweets and 66 participants with an average of 11 tweets per participant. The resulting network had 134 network members and 474 engagements. The engagement ratios and ROEs for the #LiveFitNOLA organizers were 1:1, 40% (13/32) (@TulanePRC) and 2:1, -40% (-25/63) (@FitNOLA). Content analysis showed information sharing (63.9%, 314/491) and health information (27.9%, 137/491) as the most salient theme and sub-theme, respectively.

conclusionsOur findings suggest Twitter chats facilitate audience engagement in two-way communications between public health entities and their audience. The #LiveFitNOLA organizers' engagement ratios and ROEs indicated a moderate level of engagement with their audience. The practical significance of the engagement ratio and ROE depends on the audience, context, scope, scale, and goal of a Twitter chat or other organized hashtag-based communications on Twitter.

Indexed as

content analysispublic health, communicationsocial mediasocial network analysisTwitterTwitter chat

Identifiers

PMID28596149
PMCPMC5481664

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.