Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41561865›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2025

From empathy to action: exploring emotional mechanisms of online public opinion in a public health crisis.

Adina Yuetikuer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

1 author.

Adina YuetikuerSchool of Journalism, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Drawing on digital empathy theory, this study explores how empathic expressions evolve and manifest as action-oriented behaviors in online public discourse during a public health crisis. Specifically, it focuses on a doctor's suicide incident discussed on the Weibo platform, examining how various empathy types influence public opinion and engagement. By investigating the emotional and behavioral responses within the digital realm, the study contributes to understanding the complex dynamics of empathy and its impact on collective emotion and decision-making during health-related crises. Methods: Data were collected from Weibo posts related to the doctor's suicide incident, and analyzed using Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) topic modeling and sentiment analysis. Results: The study revealed four primary areas of focus in the posts: medical decision-making disputes, cyberbullying and platform responsibility, media reproduction, and official reports and judicial investigations. Additionally, the study identified four distinct types of empathy expressed in the comments: professional empathy, institutional empathy, cultural empathy, and action-oriented empathy. The study also revealed significant differences in emotional valence across the four empathy types, and found that female users exhibited a higher level of empathic engagement compared to male users. Discussion: These findings suggest that digital empathy in public health crises operates as a complex, multi-layered emotional-behavioral mechanism. Different empathy types not only influence the emotional tone of online discussions but also affect the level of engagement and the type of actions that users take. This study highlights the critical role of empathy in shaping online behaviors during health-related crises and provides valuable insights into how platforms can manage emotional engagement to encourage constructive participation.

Indexed as

EmotionsEmpathyInternetPublic HealthPublic OpinionDigital MediaFemaleHumansMaledigital empathyemotional valenceonline behaviorpublic health crisissentiment analysisWeibo

Identifiers

PMID41561865
PMCPMC12813013

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.