ArticleBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2023
[Sentiments in the COVID-19 crisis communication of German authorities and independent experts on Twitter : A sentiment analysis for the first year of the pandemic].
Article in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2023. 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.
- Enhancing risk and crisis communication with computational methods: A systematic literature review.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAt the beginning of the COVID‑19 pandemic in Germany, there was great uncertainty among the population and among those responsible for crisis communication. A substantial part of the communication from experts and the responsible authorities took place on social media, especially on Twitter. The positive, negative, and neutral sentiments (emotions) conveyed there during crisis communication have not yet been comparatively studied for Germany. STUDY
aimSentiments in Twitter messages from various (health) authorities and independent experts on COVID‑19 will be evaluated for the first pandemic year (1 January 2020 to 15 January 2021) to provide a knowledge base for improving future crisis communication. MATERIAL AND
methodsFrom n = 39 Twitter actors (21 authorities and 18 experts), n = 8251 tweets were included in the analysis. The sentiment analysis was done using the so-called lexicon approach, a method within the social media analytics framework to detect sentiments. Descriptive statistics were calculated to determine, among other things, the average polarity of sentiments and the frequencies of positive and negative words in the three phases of the pandemic. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The development of emotionality in COVID‑19 tweets and the number of new infections in Germany run roughly parallel. The analysis shows that the polarity of sentiments is negative on average for both groups of actors. Experts tweet significantly more negatively about COVID‑19 than authorities during the study period. Authorities communicate close to the neutrality line in the second phase, that is, neither distinctly positive nor negative.
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.