Privacy Concerns About Sharing General and Specific Health Information on Twitter: Quantitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Twitter is a common platform for people to share opinions, discuss health-related topics, and engage in conversations with a wide audience. Twitter users frequently share health information related to chronic diseases, mental health, and general wellness topics. However, sharing health information on Twitter raises privacy concerns as it involves sharing personal and sensitive data on a web-based platform. Objective This study aims to adopt an interactive approach and develop a model consisting of privacy concerns related to web-based vendors and web-based peers. The research model integrates the 4 dimensions of concern for information privacy that express concerns related to the practices of companies and the 4 dimensions of peer privacy concern that reflect concerns related to web-based interactions with peers. This study examined how this interaction may affect individuals’ information-sharing behavior on Twitter. Methods Data were collected from 329 Twitter users in the United States using a web-based survey. Results Results suggest that privacy concerns related to company practices might not significantly influence the sharing of general health information, such as details about hospitals and medications. However, privacy concerns related to companies and third parties can negatively shape the disclosure of specific health information, such as personal medical issues (β=−.43; P<.001). Findings show that peer-related privacy concerns significantly predict sharing patterns associated with general (β=−.38; P<.001) and specific health information (β=−.72; P<.001). In addition, results suggest that people may disclose more general health information than specific health information owing to peer-related privacy concerns (t165=4.72; P<.001). The model explains 41% of the variance in general health information disclosure and 67% in specific health information sharing on Twitter. Conclusions The results can contribute to privacy research and propose some practical implications. The findings provide insights for developers, policy makers, and health communication professionals about mitigating privacy concerns in web-based health information sharing. It particularly underlines the importance of addressing peer-related privacy concerns. The study underscores the need to build a secure and trustworthy web-based environment, emphasizing the significance of peer interactions and highlighting the need for improved regulations, clear data handling policies, and users’ control over their own data.
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 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".