Trends and Characteristics of #HIVPrevention Tweets Posted Between 2014 and 2019: Retrospective Infodemiology Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Twitter is becoming an increasingly important avenue for people to seek information about HIV prevention. Tweets about HIV prevention may reflect or influence current norms about the acceptability of different HIV prevention methods. Therefore, it may be useful to empirically investigate trends in the level of attention paid to different HIV prevention topics on Twitter over time. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to investigate temporal trends in the frequency of tweets about different HIV prevention topics on Twitter between 2014 and 2019. METHODS: We used the Twitter application programming interface to obtain English-language tweets employing #HIVPrevention between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2019 (n=69,197, globally). Using iterative qualitative content analysis on samples of tweets, we developed a keyword list to categorize the tweets into 10 prevention topics (eg, condom use, preexposure prophylaxis [PrEP]) and compared the frequency of tweets mentioning each topic over time. We assessed the overall change in the proportions of #HIVPrevention tweets mentioning each prevention topic in 2019 as compared with 2014 using chi-square and Fisher exact tests. We also conducted descriptive analyses to identify the accounts posting the most original tweets, the accounts retweeted most frequently, the most frequently used word pairings, and the spatial distribution of tweets in the United States compared with the number of state-level HIV cases. RESULTS: PrEP (13,895 tweets; 20.08% of all included tweets) and HIV testing (7688, 11.11%) were the most frequently mentioned topics, whereas condom use (2941, 4.25%) and postexposure prophylaxis (PEP; 823, 1.19%) were mentioned relatively less frequently. The proportions of tweets mentioning PrEP (327/2251, 14.53%, in 2014, 5067/12,971, 39.1%, in 2019; P≤.001), HIV testing (208/2251, 9.24%, in 2014, 2193/12,971, 16.91% in 2019; P≤.001), and PEP (25/2251, 1.11%, in 2014, 342/12,971, 2.64%, in 2019; P≤.001) were higher in 2019 compared with 2014, whereas the proportions of tweets mentioning abstinence, condom use, circumcision, harm reduction, and gender inequity were lower in 2019 compared with 2014. The top retweeted accounts were mostly UN-affiliated entities; celebrities and HIV advocates were also represented. Geotagged #HIVPrevention tweets in the United States between 2014 and 2019 (n=514) were positively correlated with the number of state-level HIV cases in 2019 (r=0.81, P≤.01). CONCLUSIONS: Twitter may be a useful source for identifying HIV prevention trends. During our evaluation period (2014-2019), the most frequently mentioned prevention topics were PrEP and HIV testing in tweets using #HIVPrevention. Strategic responses to these tweets that provide information about where to get tested or how to obtain PrEP may be potential approaches to reduce HIV incidence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".