Linking Opinions Shared on Social Media About COVID-19 Public Health Measures to Adherence: Repeated Cross-Sectional Surveys of Twitter Use in Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of public health measures (PHMs) depends on population adherence. Social media were suggested as a tool to assess adherence, but representativeness and accuracy issues have been raised. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this repeated cross-sectional study were to compare self-reported PHM adherence and sociodemographic characteristics between people who used Twitter (subsequently rebranded X) and people who did not use Twitter. METHODS: Repeated Canada-wide web-based surveys were conducted every 14 days from September 2020 to March 2022. Weighted proportions were calculated for descriptive variables. Using Bayesian logistic regression models, we investigated associations between Twitter use, as well as opinions in tweets, and self-reported adherence with mask wearing and vaccination. RESULTS: Data from 40,230 respondents were analyzed. As self-reported, Twitter was used by 20.6% (95% CI 20.1%-21.2%) of Canadians, of whom 29.9% (95% CI 28.6%-31.3%) tweeted about COVID-19. The sociodemographic characteristics differed across categories of Twitter use and opinions. Overall, 11% (95% CI 10.6%-11.3%) of Canadians reported poor adherence to mask-wearing, and 10.8% (95% CI 10.4%-11.2%) to vaccination. Twitter users who tweeted about COVID-19 reported poorer adherence to mask wearing than nonusers, which was modified by the age of the respondents and their geographical region (odds ratio [OR] 0.79, 95% Bayesian credibility interval [BCI] 0.18-1.69 to OR 4.83, 95% BCI 3.13-6.86). The odds of poor adherence to vaccination of Twitter users who tweeted about COVID-19 were greater than those of nonusers (OR 1.76, 95% BCI 1.48-2.07). English- and French-speaking Twitter users who tweeted critically of PHMs were more likely (OR 4.07, 95% BCI 3.38-4.80 and OR 7.31, 95% BCI 4.26-11.03, respectively) to report poor adherence to mask wearing than non-Twitter users, and those who tweeted in support were less likely (OR 0.47, 95% BCI 0.31-0.64 and OR 0.96, 95% BCI 0.18-2.33, respectively) to report poor adherence to mask wearing than non-Twitter users. The OR of poor adherence to vaccination for those tweeting critically about PHMs and for those tweeting in support of PHMs were 4.10 (95% BCI 3.40-4.85) and 0.20 (95% BCI 0.10-0.32), respectively, compared to non-Twitter users. CONCLUSIONS: Opinions shared on Twitter can be useful to public health authorities, as they are associated with adherence to PHMs. However, the sociodemographics of social media users do not represent the general population, calling for caution when using tweets to assess general population-level behaviors.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».