Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31411143›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2019

Using Facebook for Qualitative Research: A Brief Primer.

Daschel Franz, Heather Elizabeth Marsh, Jason I Chen, Alan R Teo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Psychosocial Risks among Quebec Healthcare Workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Social Media Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. A review on fake news detection 3T's: typology, time of detection, taxonomies.International journal of information security · 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

4 authors.

Daschel FranzCenter to Improve Veteran Involvement in Care, Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System, Department of Veterans Affairs, Portland, OR, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-8711-4101
Heather Elizabeth MarshCenter to Improve Veteran Involvement in Care, Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System, Department of Veterans Affairs, Portland, OR, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1439-5029
Jason I ChenCenter to Improve Veteran Involvement in Care, Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System, Department of Veterans Affairs, Portland, OR, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6490-164X
Alan R TeoCenter to Improve Veteran Involvement in Care, Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System, Department of Veterans Affairs, Portland, OR, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2393-088X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As Facebook continues to grow its number of active users, the potential to harness data generated by Facebook users also grows. As much of Facebook users' activity consists of creating (and commenting on) written posts, the potential use of text data for research is enormous. However, conducting a content analysis of text from Facebook users requires adaptation of research methods used for more traditional sources of qualitative data. Furthermore, best practice guidelines to assist researchers interested in conducting qualitative studies using data derived from Facebook are lacking. The purpose of this primer was to identify opportunities, as well as potential pitfalls, of conducting qualitative research with Facebook users and their activity on Facebook and provide potential options to address each of these issues. We begin with an overview of information obtained from a literature review of 23 studies published between 2011 and 2018 and our own research experience to summarize current approaches to conducting qualitative health research using data obtained from Facebook users. We then identify potential strategies to address limitations related to current approaches and propose 5 key considerations for the collection, organization, and analysis of text data from Facebook. Finally, we consider ethical issues around the use and protection of Facebook data obtained from research participants. In this primer, we have identified several key considerations that should aid health researchers in the planning and execution of qualitative studies involving content analysis of text data from Facebook users.

Indexed as

HumansQualitative ResearchSocial Media

Identifiers

PMID31411143
PMCPMC6711038

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.