Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35156925›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2022

Psychiatry on Twitter: Content Analysis of the Use of Psychiatric Terms in French.

Sarah Delanys, Farah Benamara, Véronique Moriceau, François Olivier, Josiane Mothe

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Clean Words Come Out of Clean MindsTurk psikiyatri dergisi = Turkish journal of psychiatry · 2023
    Article
  6. 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.

Sarah DelanysFédération Régionale de Recherche en Psychiatrie et santé mentale d'Occitanie, Toulouse, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1203-4796
Farah BenamaraInstitut de Recherche en Informatique de Toulouse, Université de Toulouse, Toulouse, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0685-1864
Véronique MoriceauInstitut de Recherche en Informatique de Toulouse, Université de Toulouse, Toulouse, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9641-0714
François OlivierFédération Régionale de Recherche en Psychiatrie et santé mentale d'Occitanie, Toulouse, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2227-4067
Josiane MotheInstitut de Recherche en Informatique de Toulouse, Université de Toulouse, Toulouse, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9273-2193
Université Toulouse III - Paul Sabatier · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith the advent of digital technology and specifically user-generated contents in social media, new ways emerged for studying possible stigma of people in relation with mental health. Several pieces of work studied the discourse conveyed about psychiatric pathologies on Twitter considering mostly tweets in English and a limited number of psychiatric disorders terms. This paper proposes the first study to analyze the use of a wide range of psychiatric terms in tweets in French.

objectiveOur aim is to study how generic, nosographic, and therapeutic psychiatric terms are used on Twitter in French. More specifically, our study has 3 complementary goals: (1) to analyze the types of psychiatric word use (medical, misuse, or irrelevant), (2) to analyze the polarity conveyed in the tweets that use these terms (positive, negative, or neural), and (3) to compare the frequency of these terms to those observed in related work (mainly in English).

methodsOur study was conducted on a corpus of tweets in French posted from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2018, and collected using dedicated keywords. The corpus was manually annotated by clinical psychiatrists following a multilayer annotation scheme that includes the type of word use and the opinion orientation of the tweet. A qualitative analysis was performed to measure the reliability of the produced manual annotation, and then a quantitative analysis was performed considering mainly term frequency in each layer and exploring the interactions between them.

resultsOne of the first results is a resource as an annotated dataset. The initial dataset is composed of 22,579 tweets in French containing at least one of the selected psychiatric terms. From this set, experts in psychiatry randomly annotated 3040 tweets that corresponded to the resource resulting from our work. The second result is the analysis of the annotations showing that terms are misused in 45.33% (1378/3040) of the tweets and that their associated polarity is negative in 86.21% (1188/1378) of the cases. When considering the 3 types of term use, 52.14% (1585/3040) of the tweets are associated with a negative polarity. Misused terms related to psychotic disorders (721/1300, 55.46%) were more frequent to those related to depression (15/280, 5.4%).

conclusionsSome psychiatric terms are misused in the corpora we studied, which is consistent with the results reported in related work in other languages. Thanks to the great diversity of studied terms, this work highlighted a disparity in the representations and ways of using psychiatric terms. Moreover, our study is important to help psychiatrists to be aware of the term use in new communication media such as social networks that are widely used. This study has the huge advantage to be reproducible thanks to the framework and guidelines we produced so that the study could be renewed in order to analyze the evolution of term usage. While the newly build dataset is a valuable resource for other analytical studies, it could also serve to train machine learning algorithms to automatically identify stigma in social media.

Indexed as

mental healthpsychiatric term usesocial mediasocial media analysissocial stigmaTwitter

Identifiers

PMID35156925
PMCPMC8887636
OpenAlexW3034176631

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.