COVID-19 Public Health Communication on X (Formerly Twitter): Cross-Sectional Study of Message Type, Sentiment, and Source
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Social media can be used to quickly disseminate focused public health messages, increasing message reach and interaction with the public. Social media can also be an indicator of people's emotions and concerns. Social media data text mining can be used for disease forecasting and understanding public awareness of health-related concerns. Limited studies explore the impact of type, sentiment and source of tweets on engagement. Thus, it is crucial to research how the general public reacts to various kinds of messages from different sources. Objective: The objective of this paper was to determine the association between message type, user (source) and sentiment of tweets and public engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: For this study, 867,485 tweets were extracted from January 1, 2020 to March 31, 2022 from Ireland and the United Kingdom. A 4-step analytical process was undertaken, encompassing sentiment analysis, bio-classification (user), message classification and statistical analysis. A combination of manual content analysis with abductive coding and machine learning models were used to categorize sentiment, user category and message type for every tweet. A zero-inflated negative binomial model was applied to explore the most engaging content mix. Results: Our analysis resulted in 12 user categories, 6 message categories, and 3 sentiment classes. Personal stories and positive messages have the most engagement, even though not for every user group; known persons and influencers have the most engagement with humorous tweets. Health professionals receive more engagement with advocacy, personal stories/statements and humor-based tweets. Health institutes observe higher engagement with advocacy, personal stories/statements, and tweets with a positive sentiment. Personal stories/statements are not the most often tweeted category (22%) but have the highest engagement (27%). Messages centered on shock/disgust/fear-based (32%) have a 21% engagement. The frequency of informative/educational communications is high (33%) and their engagement is 16%. Advocacy message (8%) receive 9% engagement. Humor and opportunistic messages have engagements of 4% and 0.5% and low frequenciesof 5% and 1%, respectively. This study suggests the optimum mix of message type and sentiment that each user category should use to get more engagement. Conclusions: This study provides comprehensive insight into Twitter (rebranded as X in 2023) users' responses toward various message type and sources. Our study shows that audience engages with personal stories and positive messages the most. Our findings provide valuable guidance for social media-based public health campaigns in developing messages for maximum 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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".