Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31670698›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2019

Public Concern About Monitoring Twitter Users and Their Conversations to Recruit for Clinical Trials: Survey Study.

Katja Reuter, Yifan Zhu, Praveen Angyan, NamQuyen Le, Akil A Merchant, Michael Zimmer

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 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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.

Katja Reuter *Southern California Clinical and Translational Science Institute, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1559-9058
Yifan Zhu *School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3622-2858
Praveen AngyanSouthern California Clinical and Translational Science Institute, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7022-7049
NamQuyen LeSouthern California Clinical and Translational Science Institute, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5054-5362
Akil A MerchantCedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7472-822X
Michael Zimmer *Department of Computer Science, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4229-4847

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocial networks such as Twitter offer the clinical research community a novel opportunity for engaging potential study participants based on user activity data. However, the availability of public social media data has led to new ethical challenges about respecting user privacy and the appropriateness of monitoring social media for clinical trial recruitment. Researchers have voiced the need for involving users' perspectives in the development of ethical norms and regulations.

objectiveThis study examined the attitudes and level of concern among Twitter users and nonusers about using Twitter for monitoring social media users and their conversations to recruit potential clinical trial participants.

methodsWe used two online methods for recruiting study participants: the open survey was (1) advertised on Twitter between May 23 and June 8, 2017, and (2) deployed on TurkPrime, a crowdsourcing data acquisition platform, between May 23 and June 8, 2017. Eligible participants were adults, 18 years of age or older, who lived in the United States. People with and without Twitter accounts were included in the study.

resultsWhile nearly half the respondents-on Twitter (94/603, 15.6%) and on TurkPrime (509/603, 84.4%)-indicated agreement that social media monitoring constitutes a form of eavesdropping that invades their privacy, over one-third disagreed and nearly 1 in 5 had no opinion. A chi-square test revealed a positive relationship between respondents' general privacy concern and their average concern about Internet research (P<.005). We found associations between respondents' Twitter literacy and their concerns about the ability for researchers to monitor their Twitter activity for clinical trial recruitment (P=.001) and whether they consider Twitter monitoring for clinical trial recruitment as eavesdropping (P<.001) and an invasion of privacy (P=.003). As Twitter literacy increased, so did people's concerns about researchers monitoring Twitter activity. Our data support the previously suggested use of the nonexceptionalist methodology for assessing social media in research, insofar as social media-based recruitment does not need to be considered exceptional and, for most, it is considered preferable to traditional in-person interventions at physical clinics. The expressed attitudes were highly contextual, depending on factors such as the type of disease or health topic (eg, HIV/AIDS vs obesity vs smoking), the entity or person monitoring users on Twitter, and the monitored information.

conclusionsThe data and findings from this study contribute to the critical dialogue with the public about the use of social media in clinical research. The findings suggest that most users do not think that monitoring Twitter for clinical trial recruitment constitutes inappropriate surveillance or a violation of privacy. However, researchers should remain mindful that some participants might find social media monitoring problematic when connected with certain conditions or health topics. Further research should isolate factors that influence the level of concern among social media users across platforms and populations and inform the development of more clear and consistent guidelines.

Indexed as

CommunicationSocial NetworkingClinical Trials as TopicHumansSocial MediaSurveys and QuestionnairesAIDScancerclinical researchclinical trialcrowdsourcingethicsHIVHPVinfodemiologyinformed consentinfoveillanceInternetMechanical TurkmonitoringMTurkobesityprivacypublic opinionrecruitmentresearch ethicssmokingsocial mediasocial networksurveillanceTurkPrimeTwitter

Identifiers

PMID31670698
PMCPMC6914244

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.