Dataset Information

Using Social Media to Characterize Public Sentiment Toward Medical Interventions Commonly Used for Cancer Screening: An Observational Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Although cancer screening reduces morbidity and mortality, millions of people worldwide remain unscreened. Social media provide a unique platform to understand public sentiment toward tools that are commonly used for cancer screening.

Objective

The objective of our study was to examine public sentiment toward colonoscopy, mammography, and Pap smear and how this sentiment spreads by analyzing discourse on Twitter.

Methods

In this observational study, we classified 32,847 tweets (online postings on Twitter) related to colonoscopy, mammography, or Pap smears using a naive Bayes algorithm as containing positive, negative, or neutral sentiment. Additionally, we characterized the spread of sentiment on Twitter using an established model to study contagion.

Results

Colonoscopy-related tweets were more likely to express negative than positive sentiment (negative to positive ratio 1.65, 95% CI 1.51-1.80, P<.001), in contrast to the more positive sentiment expressed regarding mammography (negative to positive ratio 0.43, 95% CI 0.39-0.47, P<.001). The proportions of negative versus positive tweets about Pap smear were not significantly different (negative to positive ratio 0.95, 95% CI 0.87-1.04, P=.18). Positive and negative tweets tended to share lexical features across screening modalities. Positive tweets expressed resonance with the benefits of early detection. Fear and pain were the principal lexical features seen in negative tweets. Negative sentiment for colonoscopy and mammography spread more than positive sentiment; no correlation with sentiment and spread was seen for Pap smear.

Conclusions

Analysis of social media data provides a unique, quantitative framework to better understand the public's perception of medical interventions that are commonly used for cancer screening. Given the growing use of social media, public health interventions to improve cancer screening should use the health perceptions of the population as expressed in social network postings about tests that are frequently used for cancer screening, as well as other people they may influence with such postings.

SUBMITTER: Metwally O

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5480009 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe proliferation of misinformation on social media is a significant concern due to its frequent occurrence and subsequent adverse social consequences. Effective interventions for and corrections of misinformation have become a focal point of scholarly inquiry. However, exploration of the underlying causes that affect the public acceptance of misinformation correction is still important and not yet sufficient.ObjectiveThis study aims to identify the critical attributions that influence public acceptance of misinformation correction by using attribution analysis of aspects of public sentiment, as well as investigate the differences and similarities in public sentiment attributions in different types of misinformation correction.MethodsA theoretical framework was developed for analysis based on attribution theory, and public sentiment attributions were divided into 6 aspects and 11 dimensions. The correction posts for the 31 screened misinformation events comprised 33,422 Weibo posts, and the corresponding Weibo comments amounted to 370,218. A pretraining model was used to assess public acceptance of misinformation correction from these comments, and the aspect-based sentiment analysis method was used to identify the attributions of public sentiment response. Ultimately, this study revealed the causality between public sentiment attributions and public acceptance of misinformation correction through logistic regression analysis.ResultsThe findings were as follows: First, public sentiments attributed to external attribution had a greater impact on public acceptance than those attributed to internal attribution. The public associated different aspects with correction depending on the type of misinformation. The accuracy of the correction and the entity responsible for carrying it out had a significant impact on public acceptance of misinformation correction. Second, negative sentiments toward the media significantly increased, and public trust in the media significantly decreased. The collapse of media credibility had a detrimental effect on the actual effectiveness of misinformation correction. Third, there was a significant difference in public attitudes toward the official government and local governments. Public negative sentiments toward local governments were more pronounced.ConclusionsOur findings imply that public acceptance of misinformation correction requires flexible communication tailored to public sentiment attribution. The media need to rebuild their image and regain public trust. Moreover, the government plays a central role in public acceptance of misinformation correction. Some local governments need to repair trust with the public. Overall, this study offered insights into practical experience and a theoretical foundation for controlling various types of misinformation based on attribution analysis of public sentiment.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Society always has limited resources to expend on health care, or anything else. What are the unmet medical needs? How do we allocate limited resources to maximize the health and welfare of the people? These challenging questions might be re-examined systematically within an infodemiological frame on a much larger scale, leveraging the latest advancement in information technology and data science. OBJECTIVE:We expanded our previous work by investigating news media data to reveal the coverage of different diseases and medical conditions, together with their sentiments and topics in news articles over three decades. We were motivated to do so since news media plays a significant role in politics and affects the public policy making. METHODS:We analyzed over 3.5 million archive news articles from Reuters media during the periods of 1996/1997, 2008 and 2016, using summary statistics, sentiment analysis, and topic modeling. Summary statistics illustrated the coverage of various diseases and medical conditions during the last 3 decades. Sentiment analysis and topic modeling helped us automatically detect the sentiments of news articles (ie, positive versus negative) and topics (ie, a series of keywords) associated with each disease over time. RESULTS:The percentages of news articles mentioning diseases and medical conditions were 0.44%, 0.57% and 0.81% in the three time periods, suggesting that news media or the public has gradually increased its interests in medicine since 1996. Certain diseases such as other malignant neoplasm (34%), other infectious diseases (20%), and influenza (11%) represented the most covered diseases. Two hundred and twenty-six diseases and medical conditions (97.8%) were found to have neutral or negative sentiments in the news articles. Using topic modeling, we identified meaningful topics on these diseases and medical conditions. For instance, the smoking theme appeared in the news articles on other malignant neoplasm only during 1996/1997. The topic phrases HIV and Zika virus were linked to other infectious diseases during 1996/1997 and 2016, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:The multi-dimensional analysis of news media data allows the discovery of focus, sentiments and topics of news media in terms of diseases and medical conditions. These infodemiological discoveries could shed light on unmet medical needs and research priorities for future and provide guidance for the decision making in public policy.

Project description:BackgroundIn this age of social media, any news-good or bad-has the potential to spread in unpredictable ways. Changes in public sentiment have the potential to either drive or limit investment in publicly funded activities, such as scientific research. As a result, understanding the ways in which reported cases of scientific misconduct shape public sentiment is becoming increasingly essential-for researchers and institutions, as well as for policy makers and funders. In this study, we thus set out to assess and define the patterns according to which public sentiment may change in response to reported cases of scientific misconduct. This study focuses on the public response to the events involved in a recent case of major scientific misconduct that occurred in 2014 in Japan-stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency (STAP) cell case.ObjectivesThe aims of this study were to determine (1) the patterns according to which public sentiment changes in response to scientific misconduct; (2) whether such measures vary significantly, coincident with major timeline events; and (3) whether the changes observed mirror the response patterns reported in the literature with respect to other classes of events, such as entertainment news and disaster reports.MethodsThe recent STAP cell scandal is used as a test case. Changes in the volume and polarity of discussion were assessed using a sampling of case-related Twitter data, published between January 28, 2014 and March 15, 2015. Rapidminer was used for text processing and the popular bag-of-words algorithm, SentiWordNet, was used in Rapidminer to calculate sentiment for each sample Tweet. Relative volume and sentiment was then assessed overall, month-to-month, and with respect to individual entities.ResultsDespite the ostensibly negative subject, average sentiment over the observed period tended to be neutral (-0.04); however, a notable downward trend (y=-0.01 x +0.09; R ²=.45) was observed month-to-month. Notably polarized tweets accounted for less than one-third of sampled discussion: 17.49% (1656/9467) negative and 12.59% positive (1192/9467). Significant polarization was found in only 4 out of the 15 months covered, with significant variation month-to-month (P<.001). Significant increases in polarization tended to coincide with increased discussion volume surrounding major events (P<.001).ConclusionsThese results suggest that public opinion toward scientific research may be subject to the same sensationalist dynamics driving public opinion in other, consumer-oriented topics. The patterns in public response observed here, with respect to the STAP cell case, were found to be consistent with those observed in the literature with respect to other classes of news-worthy events on Twitter. Discussion was found to become strongly polarized only during times of increased public attention, and such increases tended to be driven primarily by negative reporting and reactionary commentary.

Project description:Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of medications commonly used in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and compare this to what current research has shown regarding medical cannabis use in this population. Methods: Searches were performed to collect information surrounding currently used medications and their safety and efficacy profiles, biologic plausibility of cannabis use for symptoms of ASD, and studies detailing cannabis' safety and efficacy profile for use in the ASD population. Results were used to compare medications to cannabis as a proposed treatment. Results: The heterogeneity of ASD produces great difficulties in finding appropriate treatment, leading to many medication changes or treatment trials throughout a patient's life. Commonly prescribed medications display varying levels of efficacy, safety, and tolerability between patients and symptoms targeted. Some of the most common side effects cited are also considered the most troubling symptoms associated with ASD; aggression, anxiety, irritability, and a negative effect on cognition, leading many patients to discontinue use as the side effects outweigh benefits. Recent case reports and retrospective studies have displayed the potential efficacy, safety, and tolerability of cannabidiol (CBD)-rich medical cannabis use for treating both core symptoms of ASD and many comorbid symptoms such as irritability and sleep problems. Studies have also identified circulating endocannabinoids as a possible biomarker for ASD, providing another possible method of diagnosis. Conclusions: Currently, there are no approved medications for the core symptoms of ASD and only two medications Food and Drug Administration approved for associated irritability. Prescribed medications for symptoms associated with ASD display varying levels of efficacy, safety, and tolerability among the heterogeneous ASD population. At the time of this study there are no published placebo-controlled trials of medical cannabis for ASD and the observational studies have limitations. CBD-rich medical cannabis seems to be an effective, tolerable, and relatively safe option for many symptoms associated with ASD, however, the long-term safety is unknown at this time.