ArticleJMIR mental health2021
Examining the Pro-Eating Disorders Community on Twitter Via the Hashtag #proana: Statistical Modeling Approach.
Article in JMIR mental health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Effectiveness of a Chatbot Single-Session Intervention for People on Waitlists for Eating Disorder Treatment: Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Trial
- Blurring the Boundaries: An Investigation of Eating Disorder Recovery Content on TikTok.The International journal of eating disorders · 2026Article
- The complexities and contradictions of online eating disorder content: A qualitative evidence synthesis of young people's views and experiences.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Co-design of a single session intervention chatbot for people on waitlists for eating disorder treatment: a qualitative interview and workshop study.Journal of eating disorders · 2025Article
- Article
- Role of social media in the presentation of disorders of gut-brain interaction: Review and recommendations.Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2024Review
- Year 2022: exploring COVID-19 pandemic in children.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2023Review
- Ethical Challenges in AI Approaches to Eating Disorders.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- The use of TikTok among children and adolescents with Eating Disorders: experience in a third-level public Italian center during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2022Article
- Traditional Machine Learning Models and Bidirectional Encoder Representations From Transformer (BERT)-Based Automatic Classification of Tweets About Eating Disorders: Algorithm Development and Validation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2022Article
- Won't We Know If It's Toxic? A Review of the Impacts of Social Media on Public Health.Missouri medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is increasing concern around communities that promote eating disorders (Pro-ED) on social media sites through messages and images that encourage dangerous weight control behaviors. These communities share group identity formed through interactions between members and can involve the exchange of "tips," restrictive dieting plans, extreme exercise plans, and motivating imagery of thin bodies. Unlike Instagram, Facebook, or Tumblr, the absence of adequate policy to moderate Pro-ED content on Twitter presents a unique space for the Pro-ED community to freely communicate. While recent research has identified terms, themes, and common lexicon used within the Pro-ED online community, very few have been longitudinal. It is important to focus upon the engagement of Pro-ED online communities over time to further understand how members interact and stay connected, which is currently lacking.
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to explore beyond the common messages of Pro-ED on Twitter to understand how Pro-ED communities get traction over time by using the hashtag considered to symbolize the Pro-ED movement, #proana. Our focus was to collect longitudinal data to gain a further understanding of the engagement of Pro-ED communities on Twitter.
methodsDescriptive statistics were used to identify the preferred tweeting style of Twitter users (either as mentioning another user in a tweet or without) as well as their most frequently used hashtag, in addition to #proana. A series of Mann Whitney U tests were then conducted to compare preferred posting style across number of followed, followers, tweets, and favorites. This was followed by linear models using a forward step-wise approach that were applied for Pro-ED Twitter users to examine the factors associated with their number of followers.
resultsThis study reviewed 11,620 Pro-ED Twitter accounts that posted using the hashtag #proana between September 2015 and July 2018. These profiles then underwent a 2-step screening of inclusion and exclusion criteria to reach the final sample of 967 profiles. Over 90% (10,484/11,620) of the profiles were found to have less than 6 tweets within the 34-month period. Most of the users were identified as preferring a mentioning style of tweeting (718/967, 74.3%) over not mentioning (248/967, 25.7%). Further, #proana and #thinspo were used interchangeably to propagate shared themes, and there was a reciprocal effect between followers and the followed.
conclusionsOur analysis showed that the number of accounts followed and number of Pro-ED tweets posted were significant predictors for the number of followers a user has, compared to likes. Our results could potentially be useful to social media platforms to understand which features could help or otherwise curtail the spread of ED messages and activity. Our findings also show that Pro-ED communities are transient in nature, engaging in superficial discussion threads but resilient, emulating cybersectarian behavior.
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.