ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026
Reddit Discussions During the 2022 Mpox Outbreak: Observational Analysis of Sentiment, Topics, and Audience Engagement.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evolution of Discourse in the Reddit Hemorrhoid Community: Topic and Sentiment Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Public health crises often reshape online discourse by amplifying uncertainty, frustration, stigma, and misinformation, with important implications for risk communication. Objective: This study examines these dynamics on Reddit (Reddit Inc) during a recent outbreak, using Mpox as a case study. Methods: We analyzed sentiment, topical themes, and audience engagement in posts and comments drawn from 4 Mpox-related subreddits. Using natural language processing methods, we applied sentiment analysis and latent Dirichlet allocation to classify 1169 posts and 6571 comments (from July 21, 2021, to July 16, 2025) into sentiment categories and 9 distinct topics. Of the 1169 posts, 611 (52.3%) were neutral, 370 (31.6%) were negative, and 188 (16.1%) were positive. Among comments, 2825 of 6571 (43%) were neutral, 1962 (29.9%) were negative, and 1784 (27.1%) were positive. We then used Kruskal-Wallis tests, Dunn post hoc comparisons, and Vargha-Delaney A to assess relationships among sentiment, topic, and engagement metrics. Results: Engagement differed significantly by sentiment (P<.001) and topic (P<.001). Negative posts had higher median scores (median 7, IQR 2-27) than positive ones (median 5, IQR 2-16; z score=6.02; adjusted P<.001; Vargha-Delaney A=0.55). Posts about systemic public health failures (Topic 4) received lower median scores (median 4, IQR 1.75-14.25) than other topics. Topic 9 accounted for 980 of 6571 (14.9%) comments, dominating discussions regardless of original post topic. Positive posts generated 284 of 922 (30.8%) positive comments, whereas negative posts received 526 of 1615 (32.6%) negative comments. Comments on positive posts had higher sentiment scores (Vargha-Delaney A=0.550), whereas comments on negative posts had lower sentiment scores (Vargha-Delaney A=0.463). Topic-level differences in comment sentiment were also observed: comments responding to posts on scientific- and policy-related debates (Topic 8) were more positive (Vargha-Delaney A=0.531), whereas those on systemic failures (Topic 4) were more negative (Vargha-Delaney A=0.478). Conclusions: Overall, the findings highlight how audience reactions can amplify emotionally charged narratives and reframe technical information into socially and politically charged debates. These insights can inform public health communication strategies by anticipating likely audience responses, mitigating stigma and misinformation, and fostering constructive dialogue during health crises.
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.