Dataset Information

Genes for Good: Engaging the Public in Genetics Research via Social Media.

ABSTRACT: The Genes for Good study uses social media to engage a large, diverse participant pool in genetics research and education. Health history and daily tracking surveys are administered through a Facebook application, and participants who complete a minimum number of surveys are mailed a saliva sample kit ("spit kit") to collect DNA for genotyping. As of March 2019, we engaged >80,000 individuals, sent spit kits to >32,000 individuals who met minimum participation requirements, and collected >27,000 spit kits. Participants come from all 50 states and include a diversity of ancestral backgrounds. Rates of important chronic health indicators are consistent with those estimated for the general U.S. population using more traditional study designs. However, our sample is younger and contains a greater percentage of females than the general population. As one means of verifying data quality, we have replicated genome-wide association studies (GWASs) for exemplar traits, such as asthma, diabetes, body mass index (BMI), and pigmentation. The flexible framework of the web application makes it relatively simple to add new questionnaires and for other researchers to collaborate. We anticipate that the study sample will continue to grow and that future analyses may further capitalize on the strengths of the longitudinal data in combination with genetic information.

SUBMITTER: Brieger K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6612519 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Genes for Good: Engaging the Public in Genetics Research via Social Media.

Brieger Katharine K Zajac Gregory J M GJM Pandit Anita A Foerster Johanna R JR Li Kevin W KW Annis Aubrey C AC Schmidt Ellen M EM Clark Chris P CP McMorrow Karly K Zhou Wei W Yang Jingjing J Kwong Alan M AM Boughton Andrew P AP Wu Jinxi J Scheller Chris C Parikh Tanvi T de la Vega Alejandro A Brazel David M DM Frieser Maia M Rea-Sandin Gianna G Fritsche Lars G LG Vrieze Scott I SI Abecasis Gonçalo R GR

American journal of human genetics 20190613 1

The Genes for Good study uses social media to engage a large, diverse participant pool in genetics research and education. Health history and daily tracking surveys are administered through a Facebook application, and participants who complete a minimum number of surveys are mailed a saliva sample kit ("spit kit") to collect DNA for genotyping. As of March 2019, we engaged >80,000 individuals, sent spit kits to >32,000 individuals who met minimum participation requirements, and collected >27,000 ...[more]

PMID: 31204010

Similar Datasets

Project description:Foodborne illness is prevented by inspection and surveillance conducted by health departments across America. Appropriate restaurant behavior is enforced and monitored via public health inspections. However, surveillance coverage provided by state and local health departments is insufficient in preventing the rising number of foodborne illness outbreaks. To address this need for improved surveillance coverage we conducted a supplementary form of public health surveillance using social media data: Yelp.com restaurant reviews in the city of San Francisco. Yelp is a social media site where users post reviews and rate restaurants they have personally visited. Presence of keywords related to health code regulations and foodborne illness symptoms, number of restaurant reviews, number of Yelp stars, and restaurant price range were included in a model predicting a restaurant's likelihood of health code violation measured by the assigned San Francisco public health code rating. For a list of major health code violations see (S1 Table). We built the predictive model using 71,360 Yelp reviews of restaurants in the San Francisco Bay Area. The predictive model was able to predict health code violations in 78% of the restaurants receiving serious citations in our pilot study of 440 restaurants. Training and validation data sets each pulled data from 220 restaurants in San Francisco. Keyword analysis of free text within Yelp not only improved detection of high-risk restaurants, but it also served to identify specific risk factors related to health code violation. To further validate our model we applied the model generated in our pilot study to Yelp data from 1,542 restaurants in San Francisco. The model achieved 91% sensitivity 74% specificity, area under the receiver operator curve of 98%, and positive predictive value of 29% (given a substandard health code rating prevalence of 10%). When our model was applied to restaurant reviews in New York City we achieved 74% sensitivity, 54% specificity, area under the receiver operator curve of 77%, and positive predictive value of 25% (given a prevalence of 12%). Model accuracy improved when reviews ranked highest by Yelp were utilized. Our results indicate that public health surveillance can be improved by using social media data to identify restaurants at high risk for health code violation. Additionally, using highly ranked Yelp reviews improves predictive power and limits the number of reviews needed to generate prediction. Use of this approach as an adjunct to current risk ranking of restaurants prior to inspection may enhance detection of those restaurants participating in high risk practices that may have gone previously undetected. This model represents a step forward in the integration of social media into meaningful public health interventions.

Project description:IntroductionDespite the potential of social media to influence public health and generate insights, the process of monitoring and analyzing the dissemination of health care messages on social media has been described as difficult and in need of improvement.ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to describe and demonstrate a reproducible methodology for cataloging and analyzing health care-related social media comments and provide insight into how clinicians and members of the general public respond to health care messaging on social media.MethodsWe collected social media comments related to the American Dental Association's 2016 "Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline for the Use of Pit-and-Fissure Sealants" between April 10, 2017, and October 31, 2017, from Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Reddit, and online message boards for the New York Times, FiveThirtyEight, and Dentaltown. Using data provided in the comments, we conducted engagement analysis as well as content, network, and sentiment analysis across 8 categories.ResultsWe collected 671 comments. Among our findings, Facebook (472 of 671) was the most popular platform among commentators; almost half of all comments (335 of 671) aligned with the recommendations of the 2016 American Dental Association sealants guideline; clinicians were more likely than the general public to like a comment that suggested an improvement to the guideline; and >75% of comments (521 of 671) were supported by anecdotal evidence.ConclusionAs the prevalence of anecdotes on social media suggests, the likelihood of falsehoods spreading on social media is high. Insights gleaned from the methodology described in this research could help combat the spread of such misinformation by providing disseminators of health care messaging with insight into their target audiences. Armed with this knowledge, disseminators can craft health care messages that more effectively engage clinicians and the general public.Knowledge transfer statementThe methodology used in this research provides a reproducible strategy for tracking social media engagement with health care messages. Engagement results can assist future delivery of health care messages to key stakeholders and ensure better implementation and adoption of these communications.

Project description:BackgroundLimited regulatory guidance surrounding the use of social media channels for participant recruitment is an interdisciplinary challenge. Establishing stakeholder-informed procedures is essential for ethical and effective use of social media for participant recruitment.ObjectiveThis study aims to provide replicable procedures for developing and implementing guidelines for using social media to recruit participants in research studies.MethodsSocial media use cases at the university were used to identify institutional stakeholders for the initiative. After establishing workflow procedures, a scoping review of web-based materials about recruitment and research on the internet and social media from 19 peer institutions and 2 federal agencies was conducted to inform the structure of the policies and procedures. End users (investigators and study coordinators; N=14) also provided feedback on the policies and procedures and implementation.ResultsRepresentatives (n=7) from 5 institutional offices and 15 subject-matter experts from 5 areas were identified as stakeholders in the development of policies and procedures. Peers with web-based materials (n=16) identified in the scoping review revealed 4 themes that served as a basis for developing our policies and procedures. End user feedback further informed the policies and procedures and implementation. A centrally managed social media account for communicating with participants and hosting advertising campaigns on social media was also established and, when combined with the policies and procedures, resulted in 39 advertising campaigns, and 2846 participants were enrolled in health and clinical research studies.ConclusionsOur policies and procedures allow research teams to harness the potential of social media to increase study recruitment and participation; the transparent, stakeholder-informed process can be replicated by institutional administrators to establish policies and procedures that meet the interests and needs of their research community.

Project description:BackgroundGood Grief Festival was originally planned as a face-to-face festival about grief and bereavement. Due to COVID-19, it was held online over 3 days in October 2020.ObjectiveTo evaluate the festival's reach and impact.DesignPre/post evaluation.MethodsPre-festival online surveys assessed reasons for attending and attitudes to bereavement across four items (fear of saying the wrong thing, avoiding talking to someone bereaved, knowing what to do if someone bereaved was struggling, knowing how to help). Post-festival online surveys evaluated audience experiences and the four attitude items. Free-text responses, analysed using thematic analysis, generated suggestions for improvement and general comments.ResultsBetween 5003 and 6438 people attended, with most attending two to five events. Pre-festival survey participants (n = 3785) were mostly women (91%) and White (91%). About 9% were from Black or minoritised ethnic communities. About 14% were age ⩾65 years, 16% age ⩽34 years. Around 75% were members of the public, teachers, students or 'other'; 25% academics, clinicians or bereavement counsellors. A third had been bereaved in the last year; 6% had never been bereaved. People attended to learn about grief/bereavement (77%), be inspired (52%) and feel part of a community (49%). Post-festival participants (n = 685) reported feeling part of a community (68%), learning about grief/bereavement (68%) and being inspired (66%). 89% rated the festival as excellent/very good and 75% agreed that they felt more confident talking about grief after attending. Higher ratings and confidence were associated with attending more events. Post-festival attitudes were improved across all four items (p < 0.001). Attendees appreciated the festival, particularly valuing the online format, opportunities for connection during lockdown and the diversity and quality of speakers. Suggestions included improving registration, more interactive events and less content.ConclusionGood Grief Festival successfully reached a large public audience, with benefit in engagement, confidence and community-building. Evaluation was critical in shaping future events. Findings suggest festivals of this nature can play a central role in increasing death- and grief-literacy within a public health approach.

Project description:Plain english summaryBackground Patient and public involvement means researchers working with members of the public, patients or carers to jointly plan and carry out research.Aim This article is written by members of three involvement groups, and the university employees that they work with. We wanted to jointly reflect on what enables our collaborative work, and what the challenges are for everyone involved.What we did and how we did it We wanted to establish what the literature defines as 'good' public involvement and compare this with processes and practices in our involvement groups. We therefore carried out a literature review and each group met separately to discuss what characterises good involvement, and what the challenges are. From these discussions we developed a set of descriptions about each group. We compared the literature review findings with what came out of the discussions within the involvement groups.Findings Some of the involvement principles from the literature were similar to the priorities of the involvement groups. In addition, the groups identified characteristics of 'good' involvement practice that were not reported in the literature: passion and enthusiasm, informal and welcoming meeting spaces, and opportunities to share lived experiences. In this article we present examples of how principles for good involvement are practiced in these groups, and difficulties we have experienced.AbstractBackground Patient and public involvement is important for producing relevant and accessible health research. Evidence of impact from involvement is growing, but there is also a need for research on how to create conditions for meaningful collaborations between researchers and public advisers.Objective We report on a co-produced self-reflective evaluation of involvement practices in three UK research programmes.Methods A structured review identified research-based principles for 'good' public involvement in research. In parallel, members of three involvement groups co-developed statements on how the groups work, and enablers and challenges to collaborative research. The author team analysed these statements using the findings from the review.Results We identified 11 international articles reporting research-based principles for involvement published between 2013 and 2017. We identified five 'values' and seven 'practice principles' for 'good' involvement. There was convergence between these principles and the priorities of the involvement groups. But the groups also identified additional good involvement practice that were not reported by the literature: passion, enthusiasm, informal and welcoming meeting spaces, and opportunities to share lived experiences. We present examples of how principles for good involvement are practiced in these groups, and highlight principles that have been challenging to implement.Conclusions Ongoing appraisal of public involvement is crucial. We present a process for self-evaluation, illuminate what 'good' means to researchers and public advisers involved in research, and identify areas for improvement. We conclude that provision of resources that enable support to public advisers in turn enable universities and research teams to implement other principles of good involvement.

Dataset Information

Genes for Good: Engaging the Public in Genetics Research via Social Media.

Publications

Genes for Good: Engaging the Public in Genetics Research via Social Media.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets