Twitter Users’ Views on Mental Health Crisis Resolution Team Care Compared With Stakeholder Interviews and Focus Groups: Qualitative Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Analyzing Twitter posts enables rapid access to how issues and experiences are socially shared and constructed among communities of health service users and providers, in ways that traditional qualitative methods may not. OBJECTIVE: To enrich the understanding of mental health crisis care in the United Kingdom, this study explores views on crisis resolution teams (CRTs) expressed on Twitter. We aim to identify the similarities and differences among views expressed on Twitter compared with interviews and focus groups. METHODS: We used Twitter's advanced search function to retrieve public tweets on CRTs. A thematic analysis was conducted on 500 randomly selected tweets. The principles of refutational synthesis were applied to compare themes with those identified in a multicenter qualitative interview study. RESULTS: The most popular hashtag identified was #CrisisTeamFail, where posts were principally related to poor quality of care and access, particularly for people given a personality disorder diagnosis. Posts about CRTs giving unhelpful self-management advice were common, as were tweets about resource strains on mental health services. This was not identified in the research interviews. Although each source yielded unique themes, there were some overlaps with themes identified via interviews and focus groups, including the importance of rapid access to care. Views expressed on Twitter were generally more critical than those obtained via face-to-face methods. CONCLUSIONS: Traditional qualitative studies may underrepresent the views of more critical stakeholders by collecting data from participants accessed via mental health services. Research on social media content can complement traditional or face-to-face methods and ensure that a broad spectrum of viewpoints can inform service development and policy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".