Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36260398›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021

Investigating Individuals' Perceptions Regarding the Context Around the Low Back Pain Experience: Topic Modeling Analysis of Twitter Data.

Robert, Pari Delir Haghighi, Frada Burstein, Donna Urquhart, Flavia Cicuttini

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 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Robert *Department of Human-Centred Computing, Faculty of Information Technology, Monash University, Caulfield East, Australia.
Pari Delir Haghighi *Department of Human-Centred Computing, Faculty of Information Technology, Monash University, Caulfield East, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9922-1214
Frada Burstein *Department of Human-Centred Computing, Faculty of Information Technology, Monash University, Caulfield East, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8258-0878
Donna Urquhart *Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5239-2593
Flavia Cicuttini *Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8200-1618
Monash University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLow back pain (LBP) remains the leading cause of disability worldwide. A better understanding of the beliefs regarding LBP and impact of LBP on the individual is important in order to improve outcomes. Although personal experiences of LBP have traditionally been explored through qualitative studies, social media allows access to data from a large, heterogonous, and geographically distributed population, which is not possible using traditional qualitative or quantitative methods. As data on social media sites are collected in an unsolicited manner, individuals are more likely to express their views and emotions freely and in an unconstrained manner as compared to traditional data collection methods. Thus, content analysis of social media provides a novel approach to understanding how problems such as LBP are perceived by those who experience it and its impact.

objectiveThe objective of this study was to identify contextual variables of the LBP experience from a first-person perspective to provide insights into individuals' beliefs and perceptions.

methodsWe analyzed 896,867 cleaned tweets about LBP between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2018. We tested and compared latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA), Dirichlet multinomial mixture (DMM), GPU-DMM, biterm topic model, and nonnegative matrix factorization for identifying topics associated with tweets. A coherence score was determined to identify the best model. Two domain experts independently performed qualitative content analysis of the topics with the strongest coherence score and grouped them into contextual categories. The experts met and reconciled any differences and developed the final labels.

resultsLDA outperformed all other algorithms, resulting in the highest coherence score. The best model was LDA with 60 topics, with a coherence score of 0.562. The 60 topics were grouped into 19 contextual categories. "Emotion and beliefs" had the largest proportion of total tweets (157,563/896,867, 17.6%), followed by "physical activity" (124,251/896,867, 13.85%) and "daily life" (80,730/896,867, 9%), while "food and drink," "weather," and "not being understood" had the smallest proportions (11,551/896,867, 1.29%; 10,109/896,867, 1.13%; and 9180/896,867, 1.02%, respectively). Of the 11 topics within "emotion and beliefs," 113,562/157,563 (72%) had negative sentiment.

conclusionsThe content analysis of tweets in the area of LBP identified common themes that are consistent with findings from conventional qualitative studies but provide a more granular view of individuals' perspectives related to LBP. This understanding has the potential to assist with developing more effective and personalized models of care to improve outcomes in those with LBP.

Indexed as

Low Back PainSocial MediaAlgorithmsHumansQualitative Researchcontent analysiscontext of painlow back painpain experiencepatient-centered approachsocial mediatopic modelingTwitter

Identifiers

PMID36260398
PMCPMC8738994
OpenAlexW3216816850

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.