Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36421644›Full record

ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Deciphering Latent Health Information in Social Media Using a Mixed-Methods Design.

George Shaw, Margaret Zimmerman, Ligia Vasquez-Huot, Amir Karami

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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. Article
  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

4 authors.

George ShawDepartment of Public Health Sciences, School of Data Science, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC 28223, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5508-3139
Margaret ZimmermanSchool of Information Science, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0518-1707
Ligia Vasquez-HuotDepartment of Public Health Sciences, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC 28223, USA.
Amir KaramiCollat School of Business, University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35233, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1936-7497

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Natural language processing techniques have increased the volume and variety of text data that can be analyzed. The aim of this study was to identify the positive and negative topical sentiments among diet, diabetes, exercise, and obesity tweets. Using a sequential explanatory mixed-method design for our analytical framework, we analyzed a data corpus of 1.7 million diet, diabetes, exercise, and obesity (DDEO)-related tweets collected over 12 months. Sentiment analysis and topic modeling were used to analyze the data. The results show that overall, 29% of the tweets were positive, and 17% were negative. Using sentiment analysis and latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) topic modeling, we analyzed 800 positive and negative DDEO topics. From the 800 LDA topics-after the qualitative and computational removal of incoherent topics-473 topics were characterized as coherent. Obesity was the only query health topic with a higher percentage of negative tweets. The use of social media by public health practitioners should focus not only on the dissemination of health information based on the topics discovered but also consider what they can do for the health consumer as a result of the interaction in digital spaces such as social media. Future studies will benefit from using multiclass sentiment analysis methods associated with other novel topic modeling approaches.

Indexed as

health communicationobesitysentiment analysissocial mediatext-miningtopic modeling

Identifiers

PMID36421644
PMCPMC9691243

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.