ArticlePloS one2020
Diffusing science through social networks: The case of breastfeeding communication on Twitter.
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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- Wellness Influencer Responses to COVID-19 Vaccines on Social Media: A Longitudinal Observational Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Observational
- X as a Passive Sensor to Identify Opinion Leaders: A Novel Method for Balancing Visibility and Community Engagement.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Twitter discussions on breastfeeding during the COVID-19 pandemic.International breastfeeding journal · 2023Article
- Who tweets climate change papers? investigating publics of research through users' descriptions.PloS one · 2022Article
- Breastfeeding Communication Strategies, Challenges and Opportunities in the Twitter-Verse: Perspectives of Influencers and Social Network Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Building Strong Futures: The Feasibility of Using a Targeted Digital Media Campaign to Improve Knowledge About Pregnancy and Low Birthweight Among Black Women.Maternal and child health journal · 2021Article
- Real-time Twitter interactions during World Breastfeeding Week: A case study and social network analysis.PloS one · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.