| Literature DB >> 33780502 |
Sara Moukarzel1,2, Martin Rehm3, Anita Caduff2, Miguel Del Fresno4, Rafael Perez-Escamilla5, Alan J Daly2.
Abstract
Using Twitter to implement public health awareness campaigns is on the rise, but campaign monitoring and evaluation are largely dependent on basic Twitter Analytics. To establish the potential of social network theory-based metrics in better understanding public health campaigns, we analyzed real-time user interactions on Twitter during the 2020 World Breastfeeding Week (WBW) as an exemplar case. Social network analysis (SNA), including community and influencer identification, as well as topic modeling were used to compare the activity of n = 29,958 campaign participants and n = 10,694 reference users from the six-months pre-campaign period. Users formed more inter-connected relationships during the campaign, retweeting and mentioning each other 46,161 times compared to 10,662 times in the prior six months. Campaign participants formed identifiable communities that were not only based on their geolocation, but also based on interests and professional background. While influencers who dominated the WBW conversations were disproportionally members of the scientific community, the campaign did mobilize influencers from the general public who seemed to play a "bridging" role between the public and the scientific community. Users communicated about the campaign beyond its original themes to also discuss breastfeeding within the context of social and racial inequities. Applying SNA allowed understanding of the breastfeeding campaign's messaging and engagement dynamics across communities and influencers. Moving forward, WBW could benefit from improving targeting to enhance geographic coverage and user interactions. As this exemplar case indicates, social network theory and analysis can be used to inform other public health campaigns with data on user interactions that go beyond traditional metrics.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33780502 PMCID: PMC8007060 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249302
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Hashtags used to capture tweets related to the campaign as well as breastfeeding-related conversations during the six months prior to the 2020 World Breastfeeding Week campaign.
| Campaign hashtags | Breastfeeding-related hashtags |
|---|---|
| #WorldBreastfeedingWeek | #breastfeed |
| #WorldBreastfeedingWeek2020 | #breastfeeding |
| #WBW | #normalizebreastfeeding |
| #WBW2020 | #breastmilk |
| #BreastfeedingWeek | #breastfeedingsupport |
| #BreastfeedingWeek2020 | #breastfeedingmoms |
Description of type of influencers, 2020 World Breastfeeding Week Campaign.
| Type of influencers | Influencer description | Top 0.25% by metric | Metric description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transmitters | Those who send the highest volume of tweets | Outdegree | number of out-going tweets, e.g., mentioning or retweeting others |
| Transceivers | The most mentioned users or those whose tweets are the most retweeted | Indegree | number of incoming tweets, e.g., being mentioned or retweeted |
| Transcenders | Those who send the highest volume of tweets and at the same time are the most mentioned and retweeted | Overall degree | Both in- and out-going activity |
| Traders | Those who bridge otherwise disconnected individuals | Betweenness | number of times a user sits between otherwise disconnected others |
Fig 1Social network maps.
Each dot (node) represent a unique individual that tweeted to the network and the lines (edges) between the nodes reflect exchanged tweets (mentions and retweets). During the campaign, n = 29,958; Six-month data, n = 10,694.
Fig 2Profile description word clouds for users in Community 1 and 3 of the campaign network.
Differences in the percentage of Twitter influencers from the scientific community between the campaign network and the six-months network; 2020 World Breastfeeding Week.
| Influencer type | n (%) | P-value |
|---|---|---|
| 0.135 | ||
| Campaign | 58 (77.3) | |
| Pre-campaign | 47 (66.2) | |
| <0.001 | ||
| Campaign | 67 (88.2) | |
| Pre-campaign | 37 (52.9) | |
| <0.001 | ||
| Campaign | 68 (90.7) | |
| Pre-campaign | 41 (62.1) | |
| 0.051 | ||
| Campaign | 61 (81.3) | |
| Pre-campaign | 70 (92.1) |
%, percentage of members from the scientific community out of the top 75 users (top 0.25% by influence metric in campaign database); Pre-campaign: during the last six months prior to the campaign; P-value determined by Chi-Square test for differences between campaign and pre-campaign % SC.