Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32982569›Full record

ArticleInformation, communication and society2019

Supplementing a survey with respondent Twitter data to measure e-cigarette information exposure.

Joe Murphy, Y Patrick Hsieh, Michael Wenger, Annice E Kim, Rob Chew

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Information, communication and society, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Joe MurphyRTI International, Chicago, IL, USA.
Y Patrick HsiehRTI International, Chicago, IL, USA.
Michael WengerRTI International, Chicago, IL, USA.
Annice E KimRTI International, Chicago, IL, USA.
Rob ChewRTI International, Chicago, IL, USA.

Funding

Using social media data for e-cigarette surveillance and policy researchR01CA192240 · NCI · RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE · PI KIM, ANNICE E · 2014 to 2016
$1.3M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA192240
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Social media data are increasingly used by researchers to gain insights on individuals' behaviors and opinions. Platforms like Twitter provide access to individuals' postings, networks of friends and followers, and the content to which they are exposed. This article presents the methods and results of an exploratory study to supplement survey data with respondents' Twitter postings, networks of Twitter friends and followers, and information to which they were exposed about e-cigarettes. Twitter use is important to consider in e-cigarette research and other topics influenced by online information sharing and exposure. Further, Twitter metadata provide direct measures of user's friends and followers as opposed to survey self-reports. We find that Twitter metadata provide similar information to survey questions on Twitter network size without inducing recall error or other measurement issues. Using sentiment coding and machine learning methods, we find Twitter can elucidate on topics difficult to measure via surveys such as online expressed opinions and network composition. We present and discuss models predicting whether respondents' tweet positively about e-cigarettes using survey and Twitter data, finding the combined data to provide broader measures than either source alone.

Identifiers

PMID32982569
PMCPMC7518188

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.