| Literature DB >> 25289463 |
Elia Gabarron1, J Artur Serrano, Rolf Wynn, Annie Y S Lau.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Online social media, such as the microblogging site Twitter, have become a space for speedy exchange of information regarding sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), presenting a potential risk environment for how STDs are portrayed. Examining the types of "tweeters" (users who post messages on Twitter) and the nature of "tweet" messages is important for identifying how information related to STDs is posted in online social media.Entities:
Keywords: HIV; Internet; Twitter messaging; chlamydia
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25289463 PMCID: PMC4210955 DOI: 10.2196/jmir.3259
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Internet Res ISSN: 1438-8871 Impact factor: 5.428
Figure 1Search and study selection process of tweets about chlamydia and HIV on Twitter.
Tone and nature of the tweets.
|
| Joke / Fun | Serious | Fact | Personal experience | Total | |
| n=74 | n=620 | n=555 | n=139 | N=694 (100%) | ||
|
| ||||||
|
| Human | 60 (81.1%) | 134 (21.6%) | 98 (17.7%) | 96 (69.1%) | 194 (28.0%) |
|
| Fantasy | 9 (12.2%) | 71 (11.5%) | 66 (11.9%) | 14 (10.1%) | 80 (11.5%) |
|
| Logo | 5 (6.8%) | 415 (66.9%) | 391 (70.5%) | 29 (20.9%) | 420 (60.5%) |
|
| ||||||
|
| Identifiable | 21 (28.4%) | 528 (85.2%) | 483 (87.0%) | 66 (47.5%) | 549 (79.1%) |
|
| Semi-identifiable | 0 (0%) | 15 (2.4%) | 13 (2.3%) | 2 (1.4%) | 15 (2.2%) |
|
| Non-identifiable | 53 (71.6%) | 77 (12.4%) | 59 (10.6%) | 71 (51.1%) | 130 (18.7%) |
|
| ||||||
|
| Individual | 66 (89.2%) | 165 (26.6%) | 125 (22.5%) | 106 (76.3%) | 231 (33.3%) |
|
| General media | 4 (5.4%) | 128 (20.6%) | 118 (21.3%) | 14 (10.1%) | 187 (26.9%) |
|
| Scientific media | 0 (0%) | 55 (8.9%) | 55 (9.9%) | 0 (0%) | 12 (1.7%) |
|
| Government department | 0 (0%) | 12 (1.9%) | 111 (20.0%) | 3 (2.2%) | 90 (13.0%) |
|
| Non-governmental | 0 (0%) | 90 (14.5%) | 81 (14.6%) | 9 (6.5%) | 41 (5.9%) |
|
| Undefined | 3 (4.1%) | 38 (6.1%) | 35 (6.3%) | 6 (4.3%) | 19 (2.7%) |
|
| Private company | 1 (1.4%) | 18 (2.9%) | 18 (3.2%) | 1 (0.7%) | 12 (1.7%) |
|
| Academic institution | 0 (0%) | 12 (1.9%) | 12 (2.2%) | 0 (0%) | 102 (14.7%) |
|
| ||||||
|
| HIV | 18 (24.3%) | 523 (84.4%) | 461 (83.1%) | 80 (57.6%) | 541 (78.0%) |
|
| Chlamydia | 56 (75.7%) | 97 (15.6%) | 94 (16.9%) | 59 (42.4%) | 153 (22.0%) |
|
| ||||||
|
| Word HIV | 18 (24.3%) | 451 (72.7%) | 395 (71.2%) | 74 (53.2%) | 469 (67.6%) |
|
| Hashtag #HIV | 0 (0%) | 72 (11.6%) | 66 (11.9%) | 6 (4.3%) | 72 (10.4%) |
|
| Word chlamydia | 41 (55.4%) | 10 (1.6%) | 8 (1.4%) | 43 (90.9%) | 51 (7.3%) |
|
| Hashtag #chlamydia | 15 (20.3%) | 87 (14.0%) | 86 (15.5%) | 16 (11.5%) | 102 (14.7%) |
aChi-square, P<.001
Figure 2Examples of messages that have been re-tweeted more than once.
Features of the 68 re-tweeted messages.
| Feature | Chlamydia | HIV | |
|
| |||
|
| Logo | 1 (10%) | 0 (0%) |
|
| Human | 1 (10%) | 8 (14%) |
|
| Fantasy | 8 (80%) | 50 (86%) |
|
| |||
|
| Identifiable | 9 (90%) | 56 (97%) |
|
| Semi-identifiable | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
|
| Non-identifiable | 1 (10%) | 2 (3%) |
|
| |||
|
| Individual | 1 (10%) | 8 (14%) |
|
| General media | 2 (20%) | 11 (19%) |
|
| Scientific media | 1 (10%) | 8 (14%) |
|
| Government department | 6 (60%) | 12 (21%) |
|
| Non-governmental | 0 (0%) | 15 (26%) |
|
| Undefined | 0 (0%) | 1 (2%) |
|
| Private company | 0 (0%) | 3 (5%) |
|
| Academic institution | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
|
| |||
|
| Joke / Funny | 1 (10%) | 0 (0%) |
|
| Serious | 9 (90%) | 58 (100%) |
|
| |||
|
| Fact | 9 (90%) | 52 (90%) |
|
| Personal experience | 1 (10%) | 6 (10%) |
aChi-square, P<.001