ArticleFrontiers in genetics2025
Understanding stakeholders' experience with sickle cell disease by social media listening across Europe.
Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The use of social media platforms for sharing health-related information is on the rise. Sickle cell disease (SCD) affects millions of people worldwide. However, discussions by SCD stakeholders on social media remain unexplored. This study aimed to analyze discussions among SCD stakeholders on social media to understand their awareness of SCD and to explore their perceptions of the patient journey, hospitalizations and complications due to SCD, the impact of the disease on quality of life (QoL), and current unmet needs by using social media listening (SML). Methods: Data was retrospectively collected from April 2019 to April 2021 on SCD specific terms in 14 European countries from blogs, forums, and social networking sites (Twitter, public Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram). Advanced social media analytics tools, Talkwalker and Social Studio, were used for data aggregation and analysis. Conversations were filtered and contextualized through a 3-tier technique involving automated relevancy algorithms and manual review. Results: Of 317.9K conversations on SCD (93% Twitter), 945 posts on relevant patient-centric conversation were analyzed. Most patients were females (73%) and ≤30 years old (75%). Patient journey stages were addressed in 52% of conversations. Patient journey conversations were mainly regarding symptoms (56%) (mainly pain episodes, pain in general, and vaso-occlusive crises) and treatment (44%). Conversations on hospital visits or hospitalization mostly revolved around crises faced due to symptoms. Impact on QoL, especially emotional impact (56%), was also extensively discussed. Unmet needs were derived from 24% of the conversations, lack of awareness of SCD (42%) and lack of empathy and support from HCPs (24%) being the most frequent topics. Patients reported having their symptoms questioned or dismissed by healthcare professionals, which they attributed to racial bias. Conclusion: SML proves to be a useful tool for exploring the real experiences, concerns, and needs of SCD patients and other stakeholders. Analysis of SCD-related social media posts reveals that discussions mainly focus on symptoms, particularly pain, treatment, and the emotional impact of SCD on QoL. These insights are crucial for enhancing the management of SCD patients.
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.