RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Content analysis and characterization of medical tweets during the early Covid-19 pandemic
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.12.22.20248712
DO 10.1101/2020.12.22.20248712
A1 Ross Prager
A1 Michael Pratte
A1 Rudy R. Unni
A1 Sudarshan Bala
A1 Nicholas Ng Fat Hing
A1 Kay Wu
A1 Trevor A. McGrath
A1 Adam Thomas
A1 Laura Hilary Thompson
A1 Julia Hajjar
A1 Brent Thoma
A1 Philippe Rola
A1 Alan Karovitch
A1 Matthew DF McInnes
A1 Kwadwo Kyeremanteng
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/12/22/2020.12.22.20248712.abstract
AB Objective The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) has infected millions worldwide and impacted the lives of many folds more. Many clinicians share new Covid-19 related resources, research, and ideas within the online Free Open Access to Medical Education (FOAM) community of practice. This study provides a detailed content and contributor analysis of Covid-19 related tweets among the FOAM community.Design, Setting, Participants Twitter was searched from November 1st, 2019 to March 21st, 2020 for English tweets discussing Covid-19 in the FOAM community. Tweets were classified into one of 13 pre-specified content categories: original research, editorials, FOAM resource, public health, podcast or video, learned experience, refuting false information, policy discussion, emotional impact, blatantly false information, other Covid-19, and non-Covid-19. Further analysis of linked original research and FOAM resources was performed. 1000 randomly selected contributor profiles and those deemed to have contributed false information were analyzed.Results The search yielded 8541 original tweets from 4104 contributors. The number of tweets in each content category were: 1557 other Covid-19 (18·2%), 1190 emotional impact (13·9%), 1122 FOAM resources (13·1%), 1111 policy discussion (13·0%), 928 advice (10·9%), 873 learned experience (10·2%), 424 non-Covid-19 (5·0%), 410 podcast or video (4·8%), 304 editorials (3·6%), 275 original research (3·2%), 245 public health (2·9%), 83 refuting false information (1·0%), and 19 blatantly false (0·2%).Conclusions Early in the Covid-19 pandemic, the FOAM community used Twitter to share Covid-19 learned experiences, online resources, crowd-sourced advice, research, and to discuss the emotional impact of Covid-19. Twitter also provided a forum for post-publication peer review of new research. Sharing blatantly false information within this community was infrequent. This study highlights several potential benefits from engaging with the FOAM community on Twitter.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Research ethics board approval for research involving publicly available data is not required at our institutions.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesOur protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF) prior to initiation of data collection (https://osf.io/3tx96/). The original data is also published on OSF. https://osf.io/3tx96/