Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35072637›Full record

ArticleJMIR aging2022

Investigation of Carers' Perspectives of Dementia Misconceptions on Twitter: Focus Group Study.

Georgie Hudson, Sonja M Jansli, Sinan Erturk, Daniel Morris, Clarissa M Odoi, Angela Clayton-Turner, Vanessa Bray, Gill Yourston, Doreen Clouden, David Proudfoot and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR aging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Georgie Hudson *Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5002-4890
Sonja M Jansli *Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1694-8328
Sinan ErturkInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8789-1250
Daniel MorrisInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5118-7344
Clarissa M OdoiInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6132-9307
Angela Clayton-TurnerInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7107-0482
Vanessa BrayInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5163-5677
Gill YourstonInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4702-4264
Doreen CloudenInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9715-2374
David ProudfootInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4445-594X
Andrew CornwallInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1032-2348
Claire WaldronInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9007-1205
Til WykesInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5881-8003
Sagar JilkaInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1578-9350
King's College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDementia misconceptions on social media are common, with negative effects on people with the condition, their carers, and those who know them. This study codeveloped a thematic framework with carers to understand the forms these misconceptions take on Twitter.

objectiveThe aim of this study is to identify and analyze types of dementia conversations on Twitter using participatory methods.

methodsA total of 3 focus groups with dementia carers were held to develop a framework of dementia misconceptions based on their experiences. Dementia-related tweets were collected from Twitter's official application programming interface using neutral and negative search terms defined by the literature and by carers (N=48,211). A sample of these tweets was selected with equal numbers of neutral and negative words (n=1497), which was validated in individual ratings by carers. We then used the framework to analyze, in detail, a sample of carer-rated negative tweets (n=863).

resultsA total of 25.94% (12,507/48,211) of our tweet corpus contained negative search terms about dementia. The carers' framework had 3 negative and 3 neutral categories. Our thematic analysis of carer-rated negative tweets found 9 themes, including the use of weaponizing language to insult politicians (469/863, 54.3%), using dehumanizing or outdated words or statements about members of the public (n=143, 16.6%), unfounded claims about the cures or causes of dementia (n=11, 1.3%), or providing armchair diagnoses of dementia (n=21, 2.4%).

conclusionsThis is the first study to use participatory methods to develop a framework that identifies dementia misconceptions on Twitter. We show that misconceptions and stigmatizing language are not rare. They manifest through minimizing and underestimating language. Web-based campaigns aiming to reduce discrimination and stigma about dementia could target those who use negative vocabulary and reduce the misconceptions that are being propagated, thus improving general awareness.

Indexed as

Alzheimer’s Diseaseco-productiondementiamisconceptionspatient and public involvementsocial mediastigmaTwitter

Identifiers

PMID35072637
PMCPMC8822432
OpenAlexW4207009844

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.