| Literature DB >> 32808935 |
Dina Huang1, Yuru Huang1, Sahil Khanna2, Pallavi Dwivedi1, Natalie Slopen1, Kerry M Green3, Xin He1, Robin Puett4, Quynh Nguyen1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Social media platforms such as Twitter can serve as a potential data source for public health research to characterize the social neighborhood environment. Few studies have linked Twitter-derived characteristics to individual-level health outcomes.Entities:
Keywords: Twitter; cardiometabolic outcomes; neighborhood study
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32808935 PMCID: PMC7485998 DOI: 10.2196/17969
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Public Health Surveill ISSN: 2369-2960
Figure 1Twitter data collection and construction of Twitter characteristics.
Descriptive characteristics for Twitter social neighborhood characteristics.
| Zip code level Twitter characteristics | Number of zip codes with Twitter characteristics | Mean percentage (SE) |
| Happy tweets | 29,606 | 19.0 (0.06) |
| Tweets about physical activity | 29,604 | 2.2 (0.02) |
| Tweets about food | 24,177 | 5.0 (0.03) |
| Tweets about healthy food | 24,173 | 1.0 (0.02) |
| Tweets about fast food | 24,174 | 0.3 (0.01) |
Descriptive characteristics for individual characteristics from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.
| Individual-level characteristics | NHANESa 2007-2016b | NHANES 2011-2016c | |||
|
| Total participants, n | Mean, % (SE) | Total participants, n | Mean, % (SE) | |
| Age (years), mean (SE) | 29,201 | 47.3 (0.25) | 17,048 | 47.6 (0.36) | |
| Female, % (SE) | 15,040 | 51.9 (0.28) | 8803 | 52.0 (0.40) | |
| Married, % (SE) | 14,836 | 55.0 (0.72) | 8534 | 54.2 (1.02) | |
|
| |||||
|
| Black, non-Hispanic, % (SE) | 6179 | 11.4 (0.82) | 3830 | 11.4 (1.17) |
|
| White, non-Hispanic, % (SE) | 12,113 | 66.6 (1.62) | 6376 | 65.4 (2.13) |
|
| Hispanic, % (SE) | 7627 | 14.3 (1.11) | 4156 | 14.8 (1.45) |
|
| |||||
|
| Less than high school | 7579 | 17.2 (0.70) | 3942 | 15.5 (0.97) |
|
| High school | 6596 | 22.1 (0.55) | 3708 | 20.9 (0.71) |
|
| Some college | 8366 | 31.4 (0.52) | 5119 | 32.5 (0.76) |
|
| College or greater | 6621 | 29.3 (1.02) | 4262 | 31.2 (1.45) |
|
| |||||
|
| <20,000 | 6247 | 15.0 (0.61) | 3593 | 14.9 (0.85) |
|
| 20,000-55,000 | 11,518 | 37.1 (0.67) | 6453 | 36.1 (0.97) |
|
| 55,000-75,000 | 2965 | 12.6 (0.44) | 1709 | 12.3 (0.59) |
|
| 75,000-100,000 | 2503 | 11.4 (0.38) | 1437 | 10.8 (0.41) |
|
| ≥100,000 | 4399 | 23.9 (1.09) | 2861 | 25.9 (1.61) |
| BMI (kg/m2), mean (SE) | 28,818 | 28.9 (0.09) | 16,830 | 29.1 (0.12) | |
| Obesity, % (SE) | 10,478 | 36.5 (0.54) | 6144 | 37.6 (0.76) | |
| Hemoglobin A1c, % (SE) | 27,775 | 5.6 (0.01) | 16,280 | 5.6 (0.01) | |
| Diabetes prevalence, % (SE) | 4603 | 12.1 (0.32) | 2741 | 12.6 (0.42) | |
| Hypertension, % (SE) | 14,336 | 48.1 (0.59) | 8411 | 48.8 (0.77) | |
aNHANES: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.
bDescriptive statistics were weighted using the Mobile Examination Center 10-year weight.
cDescriptive statistics were weighted using Mobile Examination Center 6-year weight.
Examples of each Twitter characteristica.
| Example number | Happy tweets | Fast food tweets | Healthy food tweets | Physical activity |
| Example 1 | “I am so blessed that my family is healthy – it is all it matters!” | “I just left pizzahut with my mother!” | “collard greens are so delicious” | “gotta get up and workout in a couple hours hopefully I can get up |
| Example 2 | “Me & my bestie celebrating her bachelorette trip. We are having a blast!” | “The perfect afternoon work spot @starbucks” | “Today woke up at 8 am to eat a kale salad” | “I just finished running 6.02 miles in 50m:44s” |
| Example 3 | “Wednesday night with the best people!” | “Taco Bell run” | “I cooked for lunch today! Brown rice with roast beef, broccoli, and green beans – yummm!” | “A fun seven-mile hike at Shenandoah” |
| Example 4 | “Brunch after the hike!!!#foodporn” | “Chipotle line mad long but I am not leaving!” | “Turkey, broccoli, spinach, and tomatoes! This is breakfast yay” | “hiked to the summit of a mountain today!” |
aExample tweets were slightly modified to mask the original tweets. Specific time, location, and names were changed to avoid identity disclosure.
Twitter-derived neighborhood characteristics and adult health outcomes in the NHANES 2011-2016 subcohorta.
| Zip code-level Twitter predictors and tertiles | BMI (kg/m2), b (95% CI)b | Obesity, prevalence ratio (95% CI)b | Hypertension, prevalence ratio (95% CI)b | Diabetes, prevalence ratio (95% CI)b | |
|
| |||||
|
| Third tertile (highest) | –0.85 (–1.48 to –0.21) | 0.92 (0.82 to 1.04) | 0.94 (0.88 to 1.00) | 0.90 (0.76 to 1.05) |
|
| Second tertile | –0.65 (–1.10 to –0.20) | 0.95 (0.86 to 1.04) | 0.92 (0.86 to 0.98) | 1.02 (0.90 to 1.15) |
|
| |||||
|
| Third tertile (highest) | –0.57 (–1.27 to 0.12) | 0.94 (0.85 to 1.04) | 0.90 (0.85 to 0.96) | 1.09 (0.87 to 1.37) |
|
| Second tertile | –0.18 (–0.83 to 0.47) | 1.00 (0.91 to 1.09) | 0.92 (0.87 to 0.98) | 1.09 (0.91 to 1.32) |
|
| |||||
|
| Third tertile (highest) | –0.37 (–0.84 to 0.11) | 0.98 (0.90 to 1.07) | 0.96 (0.88 to 1.04) | 1.00 (0.84 to 1.19) |
|
| Second tertile | –0.47 (–1.04 to 0.10) | 0.99 (0.89 to 1.10) | 0.95 (0.89 to 1.02) | 1.00 (0.83 to 1.21) |
|
| |||||
|
| Third tertile (highest) | –1.02 (–1.75 to –0.28) | 0.88 (0.79 to 0.98) | 0.99 (0.91 to 1.06) | 1.00 (0.83 to 1.21) |
|
| Second tertile | –0.73 (–1.39 to –0.07) | 0.95 (0.86 to 1.04) | 0.94 (0.88 to 1.00) | 1.00 (0.85 to 1.16) |
| NHANES participants - 1c,d | 15,897 | 15,897 | 15,412 | 15,473 | |
| NHANES participants - 2e | 15,774 | 15,774 | 15,291 | 15,353 | |
aNHANES 2011-2016 among adults 20 years and older.
bAdjusted regression models were run for each outcome. For dichotomous outcomes such as obesity and diabetes (0=no; 1=yes), Poisson models were utilized. For continuous variables like body mass index, linear regression was used. Models controlled for individual-level demographics including age, gender, race/ethnicity, annual household income, as well as zip code–level characteristics such as population density, percent white, median age, and median household income. Twitter-derived characteristics were categorized into tertiles, with the lowest tertile serving as the reference group. Analyses accounted for survey weights and complex survey design to produce nationally representative estimates.
cNHANES: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.
dNumber of NHANES participants included in models with zip code–level happy tweets or physical activity tweets as the predictor variable.
eNumber of NHANES participants included in models with zip code–level healthy food tweets or fast food tweets as the predictor variable.
Twitter-derived neighborhood characteristics and adult health outcomes in full cohorta.
| Zip code–level Twitter predictors and tertiles | BMI (kg/m2), b (95% CI)b | Obesity, prevalence ratio (95% CI)b | Hypertension, prevalence ratio (95% CI)b | Diabetes, prevalence ratio (95% CI)b | |
|
| |||||
|
| Third tertile (highest) | –0.79 (–1.25 to –0.33) | 0.90 (0.82 to 0.98) | 0.94 (0.89 to 0.99) | 0.87 (0.77 to 0.99) |
|
| Second tertile | –0.53 (–0.81 to –0.24) | 0.93 (0.88 to 0.99) | 0.94 (0.89 to 0.98) | 0.99 (0.90 to 1.09) |
|
| |||||
|
| Third tertile (highest) | –0.69 (–1.19 to –0.19) | 0.89 (0.82 to 0.97) | 0.91 (0.87 to 0.96) | 1.04 (0.87 to 1.24) |
|
| Second tertile | –0.34 (–0.80 to 0.12) | 0.95 (0.89 to 1.02) | 0.93 (0.89 to 0.97) | 1.03 (0.90 to 1.18) |
|
| |||||
|
| Third tertile (highest) | –0.19 (–0.60 to 0.22) | 1.00 (0.93 to 1.08) | 0.95 (0.89 to 1.01) | 1.05 (0.91 to 1.23) |
|
| Second tertile | –0.26 (–0.71 to 0.18) | 1.01 (0.94 to 1.10) | 0.96 (0.91 to 1.02) | 1.05 (0.90 to 1.23) |
|
| |||||
|
| Third tertile (highest) | –1.02 (–1.54 to –0.51) | 0.87 (0.80 to 0.94) | 0.96 (0.91 to 1.01) | 0.93 (0.80 to 1.09) |
|
| Second tertile | –0.80 (–1.26, –0.33) | 0.92 (0.86, 0.98) | 0.93 (0.89, 0.97) | 0.94 (0.83, 1.07) |
| NHANES participantsc,d | 27,222 | 27,222 | 26,151 | 26,429 | |
| NHANES participantse | 26,814 | 26,814 | 25,752 | 26,029 | |
aData source for health outcome: NHANES 2007-2016 among adults 20 years and older.
bAdjusted regression models were run for each outcome separately. For dichotomous outcomes such as obesity and diabetes (0=no; 1=yes), Poisson models were utilized. For continuous variables like body mass index, linear regression was used. Models controlled for individual-level demographics including age, gender, race/ethnicity, annual household income, as well as zip code level characteristics including population density, percent of White, median age and median household income. Twitter-derived characteristics were categorized into tertiles, with the lowest tertile serving as the referent group. Analyses accounted for survey weights and complex survey design to produce nationally representative estimates.
cNHANES: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.
dNumber of NHANES participants included in models with zip code–level happy tweets or physical activity tweets as the predictor variable.
eNumber of NHANES participants included in models with zip code–level healthy food tweets or fast food tweets as the predictor variable.