IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/10.2105-ajph.2016.303512_5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Twitter as a tool for health research: A systematic review

Author

Listed:
  • Sinnenberg, L.
  • Buttenheim, A.M.
  • Padrez, K.
  • Mancheno, C.
  • Ungar, L.
  • Merchant, R.M.

Abstract

Background. Researchers have used traditional databases to study public health for decades. Less is known about the use of social media data sources, such as Twitter, for this purpose. Objectives. To systematically review the use of Twitter in health research, define a taxonomy to describe Twitter use, and characterize the current state of Twitter in health research. Search methods. We performed a literature search in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and CINAHL through September 2015. Selection criteria. We searched for peer-reviewed original research studies that primarily used Twitter for health research. Data collection and analysis. Two authors independently screened studies and abstracted data related to the approach to analysis of Twitter data, methodology used to study Twitter, and current state of Twitter research by evaluating time of publication, research topic, discussion of ethical concerns, and study funding source. Main results. Of 1110 unique health-related articles mentioning Twitter, 137 met eligibility criteria. The primary approaches for using Twitter in health research that constitute a new taxonomy were content analysis (56%; n = 77), surveillance (26%; n = 36), engagement (14%; n = 19), recruitment (7%; n = 9), intervention (7%; n = 9), and network analysis (4%; n = 5). These studies collectively analyzed more than 5 billion tweets primarily by using the Twitter application program interface. Of 38 potential data features describing tweets and Twitter users, 23 were reported in fewer than 4% of the articles. The Twitter-based studies in this review focused on a small subset of data elements including content analysis, geotags, and language. Most studies were published recently (33% in 2015). Public health (23%; n = 31) and infectious disease (20%; n = 28) were the research fields most commonly represented in the included studies. Approximately one third of the studies mentioned ethical board approval in their articles. Primary funding sources included federal (63%), university (13%), and foundation (6%). Conclusions. We identified a new taxonomy to describe Twitter use in health research with 6 categories. Many data elements discernible from a user's Twitter profile, especially demographics, have been underreported in the literature and can provide new opportunities to characterize the users whose data are analyzed in these studies. Twitter-based health research is a growing field funded by a diversity of organizations. Public health implications. Future work should develop standardized reporting guidelines for health researchers who use Twitter and policies that address privacy and ethical concerns in social media research.

Suggested Citation

  • Sinnenberg, L. & Buttenheim, A.M. & Padrez, K. & Mancheno, C. & Ungar, L. & Merchant, R.M., 2017. "Twitter as a tool for health research: A systematic review," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 107(1), pages 1-8.
  • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2016.303512_5
    DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303512
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303512
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303512?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2016.303512_5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.