ArticleZeitschrift fur Gesundheitswissenschaften = Journal of public health2023
Effect of daily new cases of COVID-19 on public sentiment and concern: Deep learning-based sentiment classification and semantic network analysis.
Article in Zeitschrift fur Gesundheitswissenschaften = Journal of public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring self-presentation posts of people with depression: themes, stigma, and identity construction.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Sentiment Impact of Public Health Agency communication Strategies on TikTok under COVID-19 Normalization: Deep Learning Exploration.Zeitschrift fur Gesundheitswissenschaften = Journal of public health · 2023Article
- Are the epidemic prevention facilities effective? How cities should choose epidemic prevention facilities: Taking Wuhan as an example.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- How depression self-disclosure shapes engagement and discourse on Chinese social media.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: This study explored the influence of daily new case videos posted by public health agencies (PHAs) on TikTok in the context of COVID-19 normalization, as well as public sentiment and concerns. Five different stages were used, based on the Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication model, amidst the 2022 Shanghai lockdown. Subject and Methods: After dividing the duration of the 2022 Shanghai lockdown into stages, we crawled all the user comments of videos posted by Healthy China on TikTok with the theme of daily new cases based on these five stages. Third, we constructed the pre-training model, ERNIE, to classify the sentiment of user comments. Finally, we performed semantic network analyses based on the sentiment classification results. Results: First, the high cost of fighting the epidemic during the 2022 Shanghai lockdown was why ordinary people were reluctant to cooperate with the anti-epidemic policy in the pre-crisis stage. Second, Shanghai unilaterally revised the definition of asymptomatic patients led to an escalation of risk levels and control conditions in other regions, ultimately affecting the lives and work of ordinary people in the area during the initial event stage. Third, the public reported specific details that affected their lives due to the long-term resistance to the epidemic in the maintenance stage. Fourth, the public became bored with videos regarding daily new cases in the resolution stage. Finally, the main reason for the negative public sentiment was that the local government did not follow the central government's anti-epidemic policy. Conclusion: Our results suggest that the methodology used in this study is feasible. Furthermore, our findings will help the Chinese government or PHAs improve the possible behaviors that displease the public in the anti-epidemic process.
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.