Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33529155›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021

Using Tweets to Understand How COVID-19-Related Health Beliefs Are Affected in the Age of Social Media: Twitter Data Analysis Study.

Hanyin Wang, Yikuan Li, Meghan Hutch, Andrew Naidech, Yuan Luo

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
21.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hanyin WangDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-9884-9683
Yikuan LiDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7546-9979
Meghan HutchDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-8130-9429
Andrew NaidechDepartment of Neurology, Northwestern Universtity, Chicago, IL, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-1065-5417
Yuan LuoDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-0195-7456
Northwestern University · US

Funding

Predoctoral Training Program in Biomedical Data Driven Discovery (BD3)T32LM012203 · NLM · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI KLABJAN, DIEGO, STARREN, JUSTIN B. · 2015 to 2019
$1.1M
NLM NIH HHS T32 LM012203
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe emergence of SARS-CoV-2 (ie, COVID-19) has given rise to a global pandemic affecting 215 countries and over 40 million people as of October 2020. Meanwhile, we are also experiencing an infodemic induced by the overabundance of information, some accurate and some inaccurate, spreading rapidly across social media platforms. Social media has arguably shifted the information acquisition and dissemination of a considerably large population of internet users toward higher interactivities.

objectiveThis study aimed to investigate COVID-19-related health beliefs on one of the mainstream social media platforms, Twitter, as well as potential impacting factors associated with fluctuations in health beliefs on social media.

methodsWe used COVID-19-related posts from the mainstream social media platform Twitter to monitor health beliefs. A total of 92,687,660 tweets corresponding to 8,967,986 unique users from January 6 to June 21, 2020, were retrieved. To quantify health beliefs, we employed the health belief model (HBM) with four core constructs: perceived susceptibility, perceived severity, perceived benefits, and perceived barriers. We utilized natural language processing and machine learning techniques to automate the process of judging the conformity of each tweet with each of the four HBM constructs. A total of 5000 tweets were manually annotated for training the machine learning architectures.

resultsThe machine learning classifiers yielded areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves over 0.86 for the classification of all four HBM constructs. Our analyses revealed a basic reproduction number R

conclusionsAs an analogy of the classic epidemiology model where an infection is considered to be spreading in a population with an R

Indexed as

Data AnalysisMachine LearningNatural Language ProcessingPublic OpinionCOVID-19Health EducationHumansPandemicsSocial MediaCOVID-19health beliefinfodemicinfodemiologymachine learningnatural language processingsocial mediaTwitter

Identifiers

PMID33529155
PMCPMC7901597
OpenAlexW3127039061

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.