ArticleDigital health
Who tweets what about personalised medicine? Promises and concerns from Twitter discussions in Denmark.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Digital health data are seen as valuable resources for the development of better and more efficient treatments, for instance through personalised medicine. However, health data are information about individuals who hold opinions and can challenge how data about them are used. Therefore it is important to understand public discussions around reuse of digital health data. Social media have been heralded as enabling new forms of public engagement and as a place to study social issues. In this paper, we study a public debate on Twitter about personalised medicine. We explore who participates in discussions about personalised medicine on Twitter and what they tweet about. Based on user-generated biographies we categorise users as having a 'Professional interest in personalised medicine' or as 'Private' users. We describe how users within the field tweet about the promises of personalised medicine, while users unaffiliated with the field tweet about the concrete realisation of these ambitions in the form of a new infrastructure and express concerns about the conditions for the implementation. Our study serves to remind people interested in public opinion that Twitter is a platform used for multiple purposes by different actors and not simply a bottom-up democratic forum. This study contributes with insights relevant to policymakers wishing to expand infrastructures for reuse of health data. First, by providing insights into what is discussed about health data reuse. Second, by exploring how Twitter can be used as a platform to study public discussions about reuse of health data.
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.