Exploring Topics, Emotions, and Sentiments in Health Organization Posts and Public Responses on Instagram: Content Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Social media is a vital tool for health organizations, enabling them to share evidence-based information, educate the public, correct misinformation, and support a more informed and healthier society. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to categorize health organizations' content on social media into topics; examine public engagement, sentiment, and emotional responses to these topics; and identify gaps in fear between health organizations' messages and the public response. METHODS: Real data were collected from the official Instagram accounts of health organizations worldwide. The BERTopic algorithm for topic modeling was used to categorize health organizations' posts into distinct topics. For each identified topic, we analyzed the engagement metrics (number of comments and likes) of posts categorized under the same topic, calculating the average engagement received. We examined the sentiment and emotional content of both posts and responses within the same topic, providing insights into the distributions of sentiment and emotions for each topic. Special attention was given to identifying emotions, such as fear, expressed in the posts and responses. In addition, a linguistic analysis and an analysis of sentiments and emotions over time were conducted. RESULTS: A total of 6082 posts and 82,982 comments were collected from the official Instagram accounts of 8 health organizations. The study revealed that topics related to COVID-19, vaccines, and humanitarian crises (such as the Ukraine conflict and the war in Gaza) generated the highest engagement. Our sentiment analysis of the responses to health organizations' posts showed that topics related to vaccines and monkeypox generated the highest percentage of negative responses. Fear was the dominant emotion expressed in the posts' text, while the public's responses showed more varied emotions, with anger notably high in discussions around vaccines. Gaps were observed between the level of fear conveyed in posts published by health organizations and in the fear conveyed in the public's responses to such posts, especially regarding mask wearing during COVID-19 and the influenza vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: This study underscores the importance of transparent communication that considers the emotional and sentiment-driven responses of the public on social media, particularly regarding vaccines. Understanding the psychological and social dynamics associated with public interaction with health information online can help health organizations achieve public health goals, fostering trust, countering misinformation, and promoting informed health behavior.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".