Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37184899›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2023

Using Twitter-Based Data for Sexual Violence Research: Scoping Review.

Jia Xue, Bolun Zhang, Qiaoru Zhang, Ran Hu, Jielin Jiang, Nian Liu, Yingdong Peng, Ziqian Li, Judith Logan

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

9 authors.

Jia XueFactor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1668-2531
Bolun ZhangFaculty of Information, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0767-8239
Qiaoru ZhangFaculty of Arts and Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0009-0003-2044-7838
Ran HuDepartment of Medicine, Center for Gender & Sexual Health Equity, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5068-8833
Jielin Jiang *Faculty of Information, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0009-0001-6948-2015
Nian Liu *Faculty of Information, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5477-1594
Yingdong Peng *Faculty of Information, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0009-0002-3190-8268
Ziqian Li *Faculty of Information, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0009-0002-0612-9908
Judith LoganJohn P Robarts Library, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8112-7999

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundScholars have used data from in-person interviews, administrative systems, and surveys for sexual violence research. Using Twitter as a data source for examining the nature of sexual violence is a relatively new and underexplored area of study.

objectiveWe aimed to perform a scoping review of the current literature on using Twitter data for researching sexual violence, elaborate on the validity of the methods, and discuss the implications and limitations of existing studies.

methodsWe performed a literature search in the following 6 databases: APA PsycInfo (Ovid), Scopus, PubMed, International Bibliography of Social Sciences (ProQuest), Criminal Justice Abstracts (EBSCO), and Communications Abstracts (EBSCO), in April 2022. The initial search identified 3759 articles that were imported into Covidence. Seven independent reviewers screened these articles following 2 steps: (1) title and abstract screening, and (2) full-text screening. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) empirical research, (2) focus on sexual violence, (3) analysis of Twitter data (ie, tweets or Twitter metadata), and (4) text in English. Finally, we selected 121 articles that met the inclusion criteria and coded these articles.

resultsWe coded and presented the 121 articles using Twitter-based data for sexual violence research. About 70% (89/121, 73.6%) of the articles were published in peer-reviewed journals after 2018. The reviewed articles collectively analyzed about 79.6 million tweets. The primary approaches to using Twitter as a data source were content text analysis (112/121, 92.5%) and sentiment analysis (31/121, 25.6%). Hashtags (103/121, 85.1%) were the most prominent metadata feature, followed by tweet time and date, retweets, replies, URLs, and geotags. More than a third of the articles (51/121, 42.1%) used the application programming interface to collect Twitter data. Data analyses included qualitative thematic analysis, machine learning (eg, sentiment analysis, supervised machine learning, unsupervised machine learning, and social network analysis), and quantitative analysis. Only 10.7% (13/121) of the studies discussed ethical considerations.

conclusionsWe described the current state of using Twitter data for sexual violence research, developed a new taxonomy describing Twitter as a data source, and evaluated the methodologies. Research recommendations include the following: development of methods for data collection and analysis, in-depth discussions about ethical norms, exploration of specific aspects of sexual violence on Twitter, examination of tweets in multiple languages, and decontextualization of Twitter data. This review demonstrates the potential of using Twitter data in sexual violence research.

Indexed as

Sex OffensesSocial MediaCommunicationHumansMachine LearningSurveys and Questionnairesabusedata analysisdata collectiondomestic violencepublic healthreview methodscoping reviewsexual assaultsexual violencesocial mediaTwitterTwitter dataviolencewomen’s health

Identifiers

PMID37184899
PMCPMC10227696

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.