ArticleIEEE access : practical innovations, open solutions2022
Analyzing Tweeting Patterns and Public Engagement on Twitter During the Recognition Period of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Study of Two U.S. States.
Article in IEEE access : practical innovations, open solutions, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- When Infodemic Meets Epidemic: Systematic Literature Review.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2025Pooled it
- 'We want beer': an analysis of online posts written about the alcohol ban during Qatar's soccer world cup.Alcohol and alcoholism (Oxford, Oxfordshire) · 2025Article
- Identifying determinants for promoting public engagement via Chinese E-government TikTok in public health emergencies.PloS one · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The abundance of available information on social media can provide invaluable insights into people's responses to health information and public health guidance concerning COVID-19. This study examines tweeting patterns and public engagement on Twitter, as forms of social media, related to public health messaging in two U.S. states (Washington and Louisiana) during the early stage of the pandemic. We analyze more than 7M tweets and 571K COVID-19-related tweets posted by users in the two states over the first 25 days of the pandemic in the U.S. (Feb. 23, 2020, to Mar. 18, 2020). We also qualitatively code and examine 460 tweets posted by selected governmental official accounts during the same period for public engagement analysis. We use various methods for analyzing the data, including statistical analysis, sentiment analysis, and word usage metrics, to find inter- and intra-state disparities of tweeting patterns and public engagement with health messaging. Our findings reveal that users in Washington were more active on Twitter than users in Louisiana in terms of the total number and density of COVID-19-related tweets during the early stage of the pandemic. Our correlation analysis results for counties or parishes show that the Twitter activities (tweet density, COVID-19 tweet density, and user density) were positively correlated with population density in both states at the 0.01 level of significance. Our sentiment analysis results demonstrate that the average daily sentiment scores of all and COVID-19-related tweets in Washington were consistently higher than those in Louisiana during this period. While the daily average sentiment scores of COVID-19-related tweets were in the negative range, the scores of all tweets were in the positive range in both states. Lastly, our analysis of governmental Twitter accounts found that these accounts' messages were most commonly meant to spread information about the pandemic, but that users were most likely to engage with tweets that requested readers take action, such as hand washing.
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.