Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37220196›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2023

Interdisciplinary Approach to Identify and Characterize COVID-19 Misinformation on Twitter: Mixed Methods Study.

Iris Thiele Isip Tan, Jerome Cleofas, Geoffrey Solano, Jeanne Genevive Pillejera, Jasper Kyle Catapang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Iris Thiele Isip TanMedical Informatics Unit, College of Medicine, University of the Philippines Manila, Manila, Philippines.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3227-632X
Jerome CleofasBehavioral Sciences Department, De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9203-0212
Geoffrey SolanoMathematical and Computing Sciences Unit, University of the Philippines Manila, Manila, Philippines.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4223-1355
Jeanne Genevive PillejeraMedical Informatics Unit, College of Medicine, University of the Philippines Manila, Manila, Philippines.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7701-3286
Jasper Kyle CatapangEnglish Language and Linguistics, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4510-0975

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStudying COVID-19 misinformation on Twitter presents methodological challenges. A computational approach can analyze large data sets, but it is limited when interpreting context. A qualitative approach allows for a deeper analysis of content, but it is labor-intensive and feasible only for smaller data sets.

objectiveWe aimed to identify and characterize tweets containing COVID-19 misinformation.

methodsTweets geolocated to the Philippines (January 1 to March 21, 2020) containing the words coronavirus, covid, and ncov were mined using the GetOldTweets3 Python library. This primary corpus (N=12,631) was subjected to biterm topic modeling. Key informant interviews were conducted to elicit examples of COVID-19 misinformation and determine keywords. Using NVivo (QSR International) and a combination of word frequency and text search using key informant interview keywords, subcorpus A (n=5881) was constituted and manually coded to identify misinformation. Constant comparative, iterative, and consensual analyses were used to further characterize these tweets. Tweets containing key informant interview keywords were extracted from the primary corpus and processed to constitute subcorpus B (n=4634), of which 506 tweets were manually labeled as misinformation. This training set was subjected to natural language processing to identify tweets with misinformation in the primary corpus. These tweets were further manually coded to confirm labeling.

resultsBiterm topic modeling of the primary corpus revealed the following topics: uncertainty, lawmaker's response, safety measures, testing, loved ones, health standards, panic buying, tragedies other than COVID-19, economy, COVID-19 statistics, precautions, health measures, international issues, adherence to guidelines, and frontliners. These were categorized into 4 major topics: nature of COVID-19, contexts and consequences, people and agents of COVID-19, and COVID-19 prevention and management. Manual coding of subcorpus A identified 398 tweets with misinformation in the following formats: misleading content (n=179), satire and/or parody (n=77), false connection (n=53), conspiracy (n=47), and false context (n=42). The discursive strategies identified were humor (n=109), fear mongering (n=67), anger and disgust (n=59), political commentary (n=59), performing credibility (n=45), overpositivity (n=32), and marketing (n=27). Natural language processing identified 165 tweets with misinformation. However, a manual review showed that 69.7% (115/165) of tweets did not contain misinformation.

conclusionsAn interdisciplinary approach was used to identify tweets with COVID-19 misinformation. Natural language processing mislabeled tweets, likely due to tweets written in Filipino or a combination of the Filipino and English languages. Identifying the formats and discursive strategies of tweets with misinformation required iterative, manual, and emergent coding by human coders with experiential and cultural knowledge of Twitter. An interdisciplinary team composed of experts in health, health informatics, social science, and computer science combined computational and qualitative methods to gain a better understanding of COVID-19 misinformation on Twitter.

Indexed as

biterm topic modelingCOVID-19misinformationnatural language processingTwitter

Identifiers

PMID37220196
PMCPMC10337476

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.