Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38393772›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2024

Identification of Myths and Misinformation About Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder on Social Media: Infodemiology Study.

Mai ElSherief, Steven Sumner, Vikram Krishnasamy, Christopher Jones, Royal Law, Akadia Kacha-Ochana, Lyna Schieber, Munmun De Choudhury

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. A Risk Taxonomy and Reflection Tool for Large Language Model Adoption in Public Health.Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Large-Scale Analysis of Online Questions Related to Opioid Use Disorder on Reddit.Proceedings of the ... International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media · 2025
    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

8 authors.

Mai ElSheriefKhoury College of Computer Sciences, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4718-5201
Steven SumnerCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3805-7235
Vikram KrishnasamyCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1203-3198
Christopher JonesCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8598-2100
Royal LawCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5746-5373
Akadia Kacha-OchanaCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1980-5098
Lyna SchieberCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6774-5854
Munmun De ChoudhuryGeorgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8939-264X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth misinformation and myths about treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) are present on social media and contribute to challenges in preventing drug overdose deaths. However, no systematic, quantitative methodology exists to identify what types of misinformation are being shared and discussed.

objectiveWe developed a multistage analytic pipeline to assess social media posts from Twitter (subsequently rebranded as X), YouTube, Reddit, and Drugs-Forum for the presence of health misinformation about treatment for OUD.

methodsOur approach first used document embeddings to identify potential new statements of misinformation from known myths. These statements were grouped into themes using hierarchical agglomerative clustering, and public health experts then reviewed the results for misinformation.

resultsWe collected a total of 19,953,599 posts discussing opioid-related content across the aforementioned platforms. Our multistage analytic pipeline identified 7 main clusters or discussion themes. Among a high-yield data set of posts (n=303) for further public health expert review, these included discussion about potential treatments for OUD (90/303, 29.8%), the nature of addiction (68/303, 22.5%), pharmacologic properties of substances (52/303, 16.9%), injection drug use (36/303, 11.9%), pain and opioids (28/303, 9.3%), physical dependence of medications (22/303, 7.2%), and tramadol use (7/303, 2.3%). A public health expert review of the content within each cluster identified the presence of misinformation and myths beyond those used as seed myths to initialize the algorithm.

conclusionsIdentifying and addressing misinformation through appropriate communication strategies could be an increasingly important component of preventing overdose deaths. To further this goal, we developed and tested an approach to aid in the identification of myths and misinformation about OUD from large-scale social media content.

Indexed as

addiction treatmentmachine learningmisinformationnatural language processingopioid use disordersocial mediasubstance use

Identifiers

PMID38393772
PMCPMC10924265

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.