Dataset Information

Pandemics in the age of Twitter: content analysis of Tweets during the 2009 H1N1 outbreak.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Surveys are popular methods to measure public perceptions in emergencies but can be costly and time consuming. We suggest and evaluate a complementary "infoveillance" approach using Twitter during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. Our study aimed to: 1) monitor the use of the terms "H1N1" versus "swine flu" over time; 2) conduct a content analysis of "tweets"; and 3) validate Twitter as a real-time content, sentiment, and public attention trend-tracking tool.

Methodology/principal findings

Between May 1 and December 31, 2009, we archived over 2 million Twitter posts containing keywords "swine flu," "swineflu," and/or "H1N1." using Infovigil, an infoveillance system. Tweets using "H1N1" increased from 8.8% to 40.5% (R(2) = .788; p<.001), indicating a gradual adoption of World Health Organization-recommended terminology. 5,395 tweets were randomly selected from 9 days, 4 weeks apart and coded using a tri-axial coding scheme. To track tweet content and to test the feasibility of automated coding, we created database queries for keywords and correlated these results with manual coding. Content analysis indicated resource-related posts were most commonly shared (52.6%). 4.5% of cases were identified as misinformation. News websites were the most popular sources (23.2%), while government and health agencies were linked only 1.5% of the time. 7/10 automated queries correlated with manual coding. Several Twitter activity peaks coincided with major news stories. Our results correlated well with H1N1 incidence data.

Conclusions

This study illustrates the potential of using social media to conduct "infodemiology" studies for public health. 2009 H1N1-related tweets were primarily used to disseminate information from credible sources, but were also a source of opinions and experiences. Tweets can be used for real-time content analysis and knowledge translation research, allowing health authorities to respond to public concerns.

SUBMITTER: Chew C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2993925 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe sale of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) containing nicotine is prohibited in all Australian states and territories; yet, the growing availability and convenience of the internet enable the promotion and exposure of e-cigarettes across countries. Social media's increasing pervasiveness has provided a powerful avenue to market products and influence social norms and risk behaviors. At present, there is no evidence of how e-cigarettes and vaping are promoted on social media in Australia.ObjectiveThis study aimed to investigate how e-cigarettes are portrayed and promoted on Twitter through a content analysis of vaping-related tweets containing an image posted and retweeted by Australian users and how the portrayal and promotion have emerged and trended over time.MethodsIn total, we analyzed 1303 tweets and accompanying images from 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018 collected through the Tracking Infrastructure for Social Media Analysis (TrISMA), a contemporary technical and organizational infrastructure for the tracking of public communication by Australian users of social media, via a list of 15 popular e-cigarette-related terms.ResultsDespite Australia's cautious approach toward e-cigarettes and the limited evidence supporting them as an efficacious smoking cessation aid, it is evident that there is a concerted effort by some Twitter users to promote these devices as a health-conducive (91/129, 70.5%), smoking cessation product (266/1303, 20.41%). Further, Twitter is being used in an attempt to circumvent Australian regulation and advocate for a more liberal approach to personal vaporizers (90/1303, 6.90%). A sizeable proportion of posts was dedicated to selling or promoting vape products (347/1303, 26.63%), and 19.95% (260/1303) were found to be business listings. These posts used methods to try and expand their clientele further than immediate followers by touting competitions and giveaways, with those wanting to enter having to perform a sequence of steps such as liking, tagging, and reposting, ultimately exposing the post among the user's network and to others not necessarily interested in vaping.ConclusionsThe borderless nature of social media presents a clear challenge for enforcing Article 13 of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which requires all ratifying nations to implement a ban on tobacco advertising, promotion, and sponsorship. Countering the advertising and promotion of these products is a public health challenge that will require cross-border cooperation with other World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control parties. Further research aimed at developing strategies to counter the advertising and promotion of e-cigarettes is therefore needed.

Project description:BackgroundAs the majority of Twitter content is publicly available, the platform has become a rich data source for public health surveillance, providing insights into emergent phenomena, such as vaping. Although there is a growing body of literature that has examined the content of vaping-related tweets, less is known about the people who generate and disseminate these messages and the role of e-cigarette advocates in the promotion of these devices.ObjectiveThis study aimed to identify key conversation trends and patterns over time, and discern the core voices, message frames, and sentiment surrounding e-cigarette discussions on Twitter.MethodsA random sample of data were collected from Australian Twitter users who referenced at least one of 15 identified e-cigarette related keywords during 2012, 2014, 2016, or 2018. Data collection was facilitated by TrISMA (Tracking Infrastructure for Social Media Analysis) and analyzed by content analysis.ResultsA sample of 4432 vaping-related tweets posted and retweeted by Australian users was analyzed. Positive sentiment (3754/4432, 84.70%) dominated the discourse surrounding e-cigarettes, and vape retailers and manufacturers (1161/4432, 26.20%), the general public (1079/4432, 24.35%), and e-cigarette advocates (1038/4432, 23.42%) were the most prominent posters. Several tactics were used by e-cigarette advocates to communicate their beliefs, including attempts to frame e-cigarettes as safer than traditional cigarettes, imply that federal government agencies lack sufficient competence or evidence for the policies they endorse about vaping, and denounce as propaganda "gateway" claims of youth progressing from e-cigarettes to combustible tobacco. Some of the most common themes presented in tweets were advertising or promoting e-cigarette products (2040/4432, 46.03%), promoting e-cigarette use or intent to use (970/4432, 21.89%), and discussing the potential of e-cigarettes to be used as a smoking cessation aid or tobacco alternative (716/4432, 16.16%), as well as the perceived health and safety benefits and consequences of e-cigarette use (681/4432, 15.37%).ConclusionsAustralian Twitter content does not reflect the country's current regulatory approach to e-cigarettes. Rather, the conversation on Twitter generally encourages e-cigarette use, promotes vaping as a socially acceptable practice, discredits scientific evidence of health risks, and rallies around the idea that e-cigarettes should largely be outside the bounds of health policy. The one-sided nature of the discussion is concerning, as is the lack of disclosure and transparency, especially among vaping enthusiasts who dominate the majority of e-cigarette discussions on Twitter, where it is unclear if comments are endorsed, sanctioned, or even supported by the industry.

Project description:BackgroundPandemic events often trigger a surge of clinical trial activity aimed at rapidly evaluating therapeutic or preventative interventions. Ensuring rapid public access to the complete and unbiased trial record is particularly critical for pandemic research given the urgent associated public health needs. The World Health Organization (WHO) established standards requiring posting of results to a registry within 12 months of trial completion and publication in a peer reviewed journal within 24 months of completion, though compliance with these requirements among pandemic trials is unknown.MethodsThis cross-sectional analysis characterizes availability of results in trial registries and publications among registered trials performed during the 2009 H1N1 influenza, 2014 Ebola, and 2016 Zika pandemics. We searched trial registries to identify clinical trials testing interventions related to these pandemics, and determined the time elapsed between trial completion and availability of results in the registry. We also performed a comprehensive search of MEDLINE via PubMed, Google Scholar, and EMBASE to identify corresponding peer reviewed publications. The primary outcome was the compliance with either of the WHO's established standards for sharing clinical trial results. Secondary outcomes included compliance with both standards, and assessing the time elapsed between trial completion and public availability of results.ResultsThree hundred thirty-three trials met eligibility criteria, including 261 H1N1 influenza trials, 60 Ebola trials, and 12 Zika trials. Of these, 139 (42%) either had results available in the trial registry within 12 months of study completion or had results available in a peer-reviewed publication within 24 months. Five trials (2%) met both standards. No results were available in either a registry or publication for 59 trials (18%). Among trials with registered results, a median of 42 months (IQR 16-76 months) elapsed between trial completion and results posting. For published trials, the median elapsed time between completion and publication was 21 months (IQR 9-34 months). Results were available within 24 months of study completion in either the trial registry or a peer reviewed publication for 166 trials (50%).ConclusionsVery few trials performed during prior pandemic events met established standards for the timely public dissemination of trial results.