ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2019
Digital Trespass: Ethical and Terms-of-Use Violations by Researchers Accessing Data From an Online Patient Community.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.
- Approaches to Research Ethics in Health Research on YouTube: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Pooled it
- Toward an Ethical Framework for the Text Mining of Social Media for Health Research: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in digital health · 2020Pooled it
- Communicating Antimicrobial Resistance on Instagram: Content Analysis of #AntibioticResistance.JMIR infodemiology · 2025Article
- Searching for private patient information in Internet resources (patient-targeted Google)-experiences of nurses and nursing students.BMC nursing · 2024Article
- Brain fog in chronic pain: Protocol for a discourse analysis of social media postings.PloS one · 2024Article
- It's late, but not too late to transform health systems: a global digital citizen science observatory for local solutions to global problems.Frontiers in digital health · 2024Article
- Mpox on Reddit: a Thematic Analysis of Online Posts on Mpox on a Social Media Platform among Key Populations.Journal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine · 2023Article
- Ethical and legal considerations in social media research for health technology assessment: conclusions from a scoping review.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- The Development History and Research Tendency of Medical Informatics: Topic Evolution Analysis.JMIR medical informatics · 2022Article
- Article
- Sharing Government Health Data With the Private Sector: Community Attitudes Survey.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Use of Twitter in Neurology: Boon or Bane?Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Review
- Spontaneously Generated Online Patient Experience of Modafinil: A Qualitative and NLP Analysis.Frontiers in digital health · 2021Article
- Human-Computer Interaction, Ethics, and Biomedical Informatics.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2020Review
- Special Section on Ethics in Health Informatics.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2020Review
- A Call for a Public Health Agenda for Social Media Research.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Article
- Curation of Mental Health Recovery Narrative Collections: Systematic Review and Qualitative Synthesis.JMIR mental health · 2019Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the expansion and popularity of research on websites such as Facebook and Twitter, there has been increasing concern about investigator conduct and social media ethics. The availability of large data sets has attracted researchers who are not traditionally associated with health data and its associated ethical considerations, such as computer and data scientists. Reliance on oversight by ethics review boards is inadequate and, due to the public availability of social media data, there is often confusion between public and private spaces. In addition, social media participants and researchers may pay little attention to traditional terms of use. In this paper, we review four cases involving ethical and terms-of-use violations by researchers seeking to conduct social media studies in an online patient research network. These violations involved unauthorized scraping of social media data, entry of false information, misrepresentation of researcher identities of participants on forums, lack of ethical approval and informed consent, use of member quotations, and presentation of findings at conferences and in journals without verifying accurate potential biases and limitations of the data. The correction of these ethical lapses often involves much effort in detecting and responding to violators, addressing these lapses with members of an online community, and correcting inaccuracies in the literature (including retraction of publications and conference presentations). Despite these corrective actions, we do not regard these episodes solely as violations. Instead, they represent broader ethical issues that may arise from potential sources of confusion, misinformation, inadequacies in applying traditional informed consent procedures to social media research, and differences in ethics training and scientific methodology across research disciplines. Social media research stakeholders need to assure participants that their studies will not compromise anonymity or lead to harmful outcomes while preserving the societal value of their health-related studies. Based on our experience and published recommendations by social media researchers, we offer potential directions for future prevention-oriented measures that can be applied by data producers, computer/data scientists, institutional review boards, research ethics committees, and publishers.
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.