Abstract
Importance Twitter is used by health professionals to relay information. We sought to investigate the use of tweets to describe Mpox risks to children and young people in school during summer/ fall of 2022.
Objective To determine the number of tweets discussing the risk of Mpox to children and young people in school and 1) determine accuracy, 2) for inaccurate tweets, determine if risk was minimized or exaggerated and 3) describe the characteristics of the accounts and tweets which contained accurate vs. inaccurate information.
Design Retrospective observational study.
Setting Twitter advanced search in January 2023 of tweets spanning May 18th, 2022, to September 19th, 2022.
Participants Accounts labeled as: MD, DO, nurse, pharmacist, physical therapist, other health care provider, PhD, MPH, other Ed. degree, JD, health/medicine/public policy reporter (including students or candidates) who tweeted about the risk of Mpox to children and young people in school.
Exposures Tweets containing the keywords ‘school’ and ‘mpox’, ‘pox’, or ‘monkeypox’ from May to October 2022.
Measures The primary outcome was the total of and ratio of accurate vs inaccurate tweets, the latter further subdivided by exaggerating or minimizing risk, and stratified by account author credential type. Secondary outcomes included total likes, retweets and follower counts by accurate vs inaccurate tweets, by month and account credentials. Finally, Twitter user exposure to inaccurate vs accurate Mpox tweets was estimated.
Results 262 tweets were identified. 215/262 (82%) were inaccurate and 215/215 (100%) of these exaggerated risks. 47/262 (18%) tweets were accurate. There were 163 (87%) unique authors of inaccurate tweets and 25 (13%) of accurate tweets. Among health care professionals, 86% (95/111) of tweets were inaccurate. Only health reporters, (23/41) 56% of tweets, were more likely to provide accurate information, however this was driven by one reporter. Multiplying accuracy by followers and retweets, Twitter users were approximately 974x more likely to encounter inaccurate than accurate information.
Conclusion Credentialed Twitter users were 4.6 times more likely to tweet inaccurate than accurate messages. We also demonstrated how incorrect tweets can be quickly amplified by retweets and popular accounts. In the case of Mpox in children and young people, incorrect information exaggerated the risks 100% of the time.
Question Were tweets during the summer/ fall of 2022 that discussed the risk of Mpox to children and young people in school more likely to be inaccurate or accurate?
Findings Credentialed Twitter users discussing the risk of Mpox to children and young people in schools were 4.6 times more likely to tweet inaccurate than accurate messages. 215/262 (82%) tweets were inaccurate and 215/215 (100%) of these exaggerated risks. 47/262 (18%) were accurate.
Meaning Twitter users were more often exposed to inaccurate than accurate information about the risk of Mpox to children and young people in school.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Disclosure: Vinay Prasad’s Disclosures. (Research funding) Arnold Ventures (Royalties) Johns Hopkins Press, Medscape, and MedPage (Honoraria) Grand Rounds/lectures from universities, medical centers, non-profits, and professional societies. (Consulting) UnitedHealthcare and OptumRX. (Other) Plenary Session podcast has Patreon backers, YouTube, and Substack. All other authors have no financial nor non-financial conflicts of interest to report.
Funding: None
Study type: Original Investigation
Data Availability
All analyzed tweets are located in the supplement.
