ArticleBMC public health2024
What is said about #donateliver or #liverdonor? Reflexive thematic analysis of Twitter (X) posts from 2012 to 2022.
Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Information Seeking and Engagement on Social Media Among Pediatric Solid Organ Transplant Recipients and Their Families.Pediatric transplantation · 2026Article
- Social Media-Based Cancer Education: Bibliometric and Thematic Analysis.JMIR cancer · 2025Article
- Analyzing Patient Experience on Weibo: Machine Learning Approach to Topic Modeling and Sentiment Analysis.JMIR medical informatics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is sustained interest in understanding the perspectives of liver transplant recipients and living donors, with several qualitative studies shedding light on this emotionally charged subject. However, these studies have relied primarily on traditional semi-structured interviews, which, while valuable, come with inherent limitations. Consequently, there remains a gap in our comprehension of the broader public discourse surrounding living liver donation. This study aims to bridge this gap by delving into public conversations related to living liver donation through a qualitative analysis of Twitter (now X) posts, offering a fresh perspective on this critical issue.
methodsTo compile a comprehensive dataset, we extracted original tweets containing the hashtags "#donateliver" OR "#liverdonor", all posted in English from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2022. We then selected tweets from individual users whose Twitter (X) accounts featured authentic human names, ensuring the credibility of our data. Employing Braun and Clarke's reflexive thematic analysis approach, the study investigators read and analysed the included tweets, identifying two main themes and six subthemes. The Health Policy Triangle framework was applied to understand the roles of different stakeholders involved in the discourse and suggest areas for policy improvement.
resultsA total of 361 unique tweets from individual users were analysed. The major theme that emerged was the persistent shortage of liver donors, underscoring the desperation faced by individuals in need of life-saving liver transplants and the urgency of addressing the organ shortage problem. The second theme delved into the experiences of liver donors post-surgery, shedding light on a variety of aspects related to the transplantation process, including the visibility of surgical scars, and the significance of returning to physical activity and exercise post-surgery.
conclusionThe multifaceted experiences of individuals involved in the transplantation process, both recipients and donors, should be further studied in our efforts to improve the critical shortage of liver donors.
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.