ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Examination of the Public's Reaction on Twitter to the Over-Turning of Roe v Wade and Abortion Bans.
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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Examining contraception-related discourse on social media after the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization Supreme Court decision: a textual analysis of user-generated content on X (formerly Twitter).Reproductive health · 2026Article
- English- and Spanish-speaking U.S. adults' perceptions of the most common reasons for abortion: a study of open-ended data before and after Dobbs v. Jackson.Reproductive health · 2025Article
- Public health and clinical implications of Dobbs v. Jackson for patients and healthcare providers: A scoping review.PloS one · 2024Article
- Effect of Recent Abortion Legislation on Twitter User Engagement, Sentiment, and Expressions of Trust in Clinicians and Privacy of Health Information: Content Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- A Review on Electronic Health Record Text-Mining for Biomedical Name Entity Recognition in Healthcare Domain.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Perspectives on Privacy in the Post-Roe Era: A Mixed-Methods of Machine Learning and Qualitative Analyses of Tweets.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2023Article
- Examining ethno-racial attitudes of the public in Twitter discourses related to the United States Supreme CourtFrontiers in global women's health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The overturning of Roe v Wade reinvigorated the national debate on abortion. We used Twitter data to examine temporal, geographical and sentiment patterns in the public's reaction. Using the Twitter API for Academic Research, a random sample of publicly available tweets was collected from 1 May-15 July in 2021 and 2022. Tweets were filtered based on keywords relating to Roe v Wade and abortion (227,161 tweets in 2021 and 504,803 tweets in 2022). These tweets were tagged for sentiment, tracked by state, and indexed over time. Time plots reveal low levels of conversations on these topics until the leaked Supreme Court opinion in early May 2022. Unlike pro-choice tweets which declined, pro-life conversations continued with renewed interest throughout May and increased again following the official overturning of Roe v Wade. Conversations were less prevalent in some these states had abortion trigger laws (Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi). Collapsing across topic categories, 2022 tweets were more negative and less neutral and positive compared to 2021 tweets. In network analysis, tweets mentioning woman/women, supreme court, and abortion spread faster and reached to more Twitter users than those mentioning Roe Wade and Scotus. Twitter data can provide real-time insights into the experiences and perceptions of people across the United States, which can be used to inform healthcare policies and decision-making.
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.