Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37906234›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2023

Understanding Public Perceptions and Discussions on Opioids Through Twitter: Cross-Sectional Infodemiology Study.

Federico Carabot, Oscar Fraile-Martínez, Carolina Donat-Vargas, Javier Santoma, Cielo Garcia-Montero, Mariana Pinto da Costa, Rosa M Molina-Ruiz, Miguel A Ortega, Melchor Alvarez-Mon, Miguel Angel Alvarez-Mon

Open access · goldAbstract read
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 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Understanding social media discourse on antidepressants: unsupervised and sentiment analysis using X.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Federico CarabotDepartment of Medicine and Medical Specialities, University of Alcala, Alcala de Henares, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-6569-841X
Oscar Fraile-MartínezRamón y Cajal Institute of Sanitary Research, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-4494-6397
Carolina Donat-VargasInstitute for Global Health, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-4523-4148
Javier SantomaDepartment of Medicine and Medical Specialities, University of Alcala, Alcala de Henares, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-7973-2893
Cielo Garcia-MonteroRamón y Cajal Institute of Sanitary Research, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-6016-7855
Mariana Pinto da CostaSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5966-5723
Rosa M Molina-RuizDepartment of Psychiatry and Mental Health, San Carlos Clinical University Hospital, IdiSSC, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-1551-2802
Miguel A OrtegaDepartment of Medicine and Medical Specialities, University of Alcala, Alcala de Henares, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-2588-1708
Melchor Alvarez-MonRamón y Cajal Institute of Sanitary Research, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-1309-7510
Miguel Angel Alvarez-MonDepartment of Medicine and Medical Specialities, University of Alcala, Alcala de Henares, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-1987-0394
Universidad de Alcalá · ESKarolinska Institutet · SEKing's College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOpioids are used for the treatment of refractory pain, but their inappropriate use has detrimental consequences for health. Understanding the current experiences and perceptions of patients in a spontaneous and colloquial environment regarding the key drugs involved in the opioid crisis is of utmost significance.

objectiveThe study aims to analyze Twitter content related to opioids, with objectives including characterizing users participating in these conversations, identifying prevalent topics and gauging public perception, assessing opinions on drug efficacy and tolerability, and detecting discussions related to drug dispensing, prescription, or acquisition.

methodsIn this cross-sectional study, we gathered public tweets concerning major opioids posted in English or Spanish between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2020. A total of 256,218 tweets were collected. Approximately 27% (69,222/256,218) were excluded. Subsequently, 7000 tweets were subjected to manual analysis based on a codebook developed by the researchers. The remaining databases underwent analysis using machine learning classifiers. In the codebook, the type of user was the initial classification domain. We differentiated between patients, family members and friends, health care professionals, and institutions. Next, a distinction was made between medical and nonmedical content. If it was medical in nature, we classified it according to whether it referred to the drug's efficacy or adverse effects. In nonmedical content tweets, we analyzed whether the content referred to management issues (eg, pharmacy dispensation, medical appointment prescriptions, commercial advertisements, or legal aspects) or the trivialization of the drug.

resultsAmong the entire array of scrutinized pharmaceuticals, fentanyl emerged as the predominant subject, featuring in 27% (39,997/148,335 posts) of the tweets. Concerning user categorization, roughly 70% (101,259/148,335) were classified as patients. Nevertheless, tweets posted by health care professionals obtained the highest number of retweets (37/16,956, 0.2% of their posts received over 100 retweets). We found statistically significant differences in the distribution concerning efficacy and side effects among distinct drug categories (P<.001). Nearly 60% (84,401/148,335) of the posts were devoted to nonmedical subjects. Within this category, legal facets and recreational use surfaced as the most prevalent themes, while in the medical discourse, efficacy constituted the most frequent topic, with over 90% (45,621/48,777) of instances characterizing it as poor or null. The opioid with the greatest proportion of tweets concerning legal considerations was fentanyl. Furthermore, fentanyl was the drug most frequently offered for sale on Twitter, while methadone generated the most tweets about pharmacy delivery.

conclusionsThe opioid crisis is present on social media, where tweets discuss legal and recreational use. Opioid users are the most active participants, prioritizing medication efficacy over side effects. Surprisingly, health care professionals generate the most engagement, indicating their positive reception. Authorities must monitor web-based opioid discussions to detect illicit acquisitions and recreational use.

Indexed as

Analgesics, OpioidSocial MediaCross-Sectional StudiesFentanylHumansInfodemiologyPublic OpinionAnalgesics, OpioidFentanylawarenessepidemicfentanylhealth communicationinfodemiologymachine learningopioidsrecreational usesocial media listeningTwitteruser

Identifiers

PMID37906234
PMCPMC10646670
OpenAlexW4386460043

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.