Exploring How Healthcare Organizations Use Twitter: A Discourse Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of Twitter by healthcare organizations is an effective means of disseminating medical information to the public. However, the content of tweets can be influenced by various factors, such as health emergencies and medical breakthroughs. In this study, we conducted a discourse analysis to better understand how public and private healthcare organizations use Twitter and the factors that influence the content of their tweets. Data were collected from the Twitter accounts of five private pharmaceutical companies, two US and two Canadian public health agencies, and the World Health Organization from 1 January 2020, to 31 December 2022. The study applied topic modeling and association rule mining to identify text patterns that influence the content of tweets across different Twitter accounts. The findings revealed that building a reputation on Twitter goes beyond just evaluating the popularity of a tweet in the online sphere. Topic modeling, when applied synchronously with hashtag and tagging analysis can provide an increase in tweet popularity. Additionally, the study showed differences in language use and style across the Twitter accounts’ categories and discussed how the impact of popular association rules could translate to significantly more user engagement. Overall, the results of this study provide insights into natural language processing for health literacy and present a way for organizations to structure their future content to ensure maximum public engagement.
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 | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".