ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2020
Investigation of Geographic and Macrolevel Variations in LGBTQ Patient Experiences: Longitudinal Social Media Analysis.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- National randomized experimental study finds no evidence of undergraduate bias against LGB biology instructors, even in LGB-unfriendly states.Bioscience · 2025Article
- Mpox Discourse on Twitter by Sexual Minority Men and Gender-Diverse Individuals: Infodemiological Study Using BERTopic.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2024Article
- Patient Experience of Sjögren's Disease and its Multifaceted Impact on Patients' Lives.Rheumatology and therapy · 2023Article
- Co-design of the Transgender Health Information Resource: Web-Based Participatory Design.Journal of participatory medicine · 2023Article
- They "Don't Know How to Deal with People Like Me": Assessing Health Care Experiences of Gender Minorities in Indiana.Transgender health · 2022Article
- Risks and Opportunities to Ensure Equity in the Application of Big Data Research in Public Health.Annual review of public health · 2022Review
- A 10-Year Social Media Analysis Exploring Hospital Online Support of Black Lives Matter and the Black Community.JAMA network open · 2021Article
- Analysis of Social Media Discussions on (#)Diet by Blue, Red, and Swing States in the U.S.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDiscrimination in the health care system contributes to worse health outcomes among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) patients.
objectiveThe aim of this study is to examine disparities in patient experience among LGBTQ persons using social media data.
methodsWe collected patient experience data from Twitter from February 2013 to February 2017 in the United States. We compared the sentiment of patient experience tweets between Twitter users who self-identified as LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ. The effect of state-level partisan identity on patient experience sentiment and differences between LGBTQ users and non-LGBTQ users were analyzed.
resultsWe observed lower (more negative) patient experience sentiment among 13,689 LGBTQ users compared to 1,362,395 non-LGBTQ users. Increasing state-level liberal political identification was associated with higher patient experience sentiment among all users but had stronger effects for LGBTQ users.
conclusionsOur findings highlight that social media data can yield insights about patient experience for LGBTQ persons and suggest that a state-level sociopolitical environment influences patient experience for this group. Efforts are needed to reduce disparities in patient care for LGBTQ persons while taking into context the effect of the political climate on these inequities.
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.