Examining Twitter Discourse on Dementia during Alzheimer’s Awareness Month in Canada: Infodemiology Study (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Twitter has become a primary platform for public health campaigns, ranging from mental health awareness week to diabetes awareness month. However, there is a paucity of knowledge about how Twitter is being used during health campaigns, especially for Alzheimer’s Awareness OBJECTIVE The purpose of our study was to examine dementia discourse during Canada’s Alzheimer’s Awareness Month in January to inform future awareness campaigns. METHODS We collected 1,289 relevant tweets using the Twint application in Python from January 1 to January 31, 2022. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data. RESULTS Guided by our analysis, four primary themes were identified: dementia education and advocacy; fundraising and promotion; experiences of dementia; and opportunities for future actions. CONCLUSIONS Although our study identified many educational, promotional, and fundraising tweets to support dementia awareness, we also found numerous tweets with cursory messaging (i.e., simply referencing January as Alzheimer’s Awareness Month in Canada). While these tweets promoted general awareness, they also highlight an opportunity for targeted educational content to correct stigmatizing language (e.g., suffering and enduring) and stereotypes (e.g., depressed and wandering) against people living with dementia. In addition, awareness strategies partnering with diverse stakeholders (such as celebrities, social media influencers, and people living with dementia and their care partners) may play a pivotal role in fostering dementia dialogue and education. Further research is needed to develop, implement, and evaluate dementia awareness strategies on Twitter. Increased knowledge, partnerships, and research are essential to enhancing dementia awareness during Canada’s Alzheimer’s Awareness Month and beyond. CLINICALTRIAL Not applicable.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".