ArticleBMC public health2026
Health anxiety and collective sense-making in the Chinese social media sphere: a topic modeling assessment of Weibo chatters.
Article in BMC public health, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe pervasive penetration of social media is reshaping the generative logic and communication pathways of health anxiety, which is significantly impacting public mental health and individual behavior. This study aimed to examine the topic threads of health anxiety discussions on Sina Weibo as well as the threat and efficacy elements contained in the health-related messages through the Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM) framework.
methodsA total of 138,587 social media posts related to health anxiety were collected using keyword combination of "health" AND ("worry" OR "concern" OR "anxiety") on the Weibo open API. Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) model procedures were applied to identify the main topics in health anxiety discussions. Moreover, 1,480 most popular posts ranked by "Like" clicks were selected for manual textual analysis. Based on the Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM), four dimensions-severity, susceptibility, self-efficacy, and response efficacy-were used as the coding framework for content analysis to systematically ascertain the topic structure, information characteristics and information engagement with health anxiety Weibo discussions.
resultsDiscussions of health anxiety cover a wide range of topics. The most prominent topic is positive living and health ideals (intensity = 0.4456), and other major topics include sleep disorders and mental health, adolescent mental health education and social adaptation, healthy lifestyle and self-management. There is a noticeable imbalance between elements of threat and efficacy in health anxiety discussions. Threat information dominates health anxiety discussions, with severity being the most prevalent component (73.24%). Conversely, efficacy information is much less featured, particularly regarding response efficacy (16.15%). Higher perceived threat levels in health anxiety discussions correlate with reduced engagement (fewer likes), whereas greater efficacy information levels are associated with increased engagement (more likes).
conclusionsHealth anxiety discussions on social media exhibit a generative logic characterized by thematic threads emphasizing positive confidence-building, proactive measures, ailment-specific guidance, and subgroup-focused solution tips. Users' conception of health anxiety reflects a contradictory pattern of "high threat-low efficacy", wherein information about health threats is far more prevalent than information about self-efficacy. These findings show that EPPM-related threat and efficacy elements are distributed in user-generated Weibo discussions.
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.