Linking Opinions Shared on Social Media About COVID-19 Public Health Measures to Adherence: Repeated Cross-Sectional Surveys of Twitter Use in Canada (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".