Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32790712›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Diffusing science through social networks: The case of breastfeeding communication on Twitter.

Sara Moukarzel, Martin Rehm, Miguel Del Fresno, Alan J Daly

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
8.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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 at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Sara MoukarzelLarsson-Rosenquist Foundation Mother-Milk-Infant Center of Research Excellence, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-4440-2178
Martin RehmInstitute of Educational Consulting, University of Education Weingarten, Weingarten, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9553-7008
Miguel Del FresnoDepartment of Social Work, National Distance Education University, Madrid, Spain.
Alan J DalyDepartment of Education Studies, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States of America.
California Department of Education · USUniversidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia · ESUniversity of Education Weingarten · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breastfeeding is one of many health practices known to support the survival and health of mother and infant, yet low breastfeeding rates persist globally. These rates may be influenced by limited diffusion of evidence-based research and guidelines from the scientific community (SC). As recently highlighted by the National Academy of Sciences, there is a need for the SC to diffuse its findings to the public more effectively online, as means to counteract the spread of misinformation. In response to this call, we gathered data from Twitter for one month from major breastfeeding hashtags resulting in an interconnected social network (n = 3,798 users). We then identified 59 influencers who disproportionately influenced information flow using social network analysis. These influencers were from the SC (e.g. academics, researchers, health care practitioners), as well as interested citizens (IC) and companies. We then conducted an ego-network analysis of influencer networks, developed ego maps, and compared diffusion metrics across the SC, IC and company influencers. We also qualitatively analyzed their tweets (n = 711) to understand the type of information being diffused. SC influencers were the least efficient communicators. Although having the highest tweeting activity (80% of tweets), they did not reach more individuals compared to IC and companies (two-step ego size: 220± 99, 188 ± 124, 169 ± 97 respectively, P = 0.28). Content analysis of tweets suggest IC are more active than the SC in diffusing evidence-based breastfeeding knowledge, with 35% of their tweets around recent research findings compared to only 12% by the SC. Nonetheless, in terms of outreach to the general public, the two-step networks of SC influences were more heterogenous than ICs (55.7 ± 5.07, 50.9 ± 12.0, respectively, P<0.001). Collectively, these findings suggest SC influencers may possess latent potential to diffuse research and evidence- based practices. However, the research suggests specific ways to enhance diffusion.

Indexed as

Breast FeedingSocial NetworkingFemaleHumansInformation DisseminationSocial Media

Identifiers

PMID32790712
PMCPMC7425887
OpenAlexW3049659496

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.