• Medicine · Feb 2016

    Observational Study

    The Source and Credibility of Colorectal Cancer Information on Twitter.

    • SoHyun Park, Heung-Kwon Oh, Gibeom Park, Bongwon Suh, Woo Kyung Bae, Jin Won Kim, Hyuk Yoon, Duck-Woo Kim, and Sung-Bum Kang.
    • From the Department of Transdisciplinary Studies (SHP, GP, BS), Graduate School of Convergence Science and Technology, Seoul National University, Seoul; Department of Surgery (H-KO, D-WK, S-BK), Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam; Health Promotion Center (WKB), Department of Family Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam; and Department of Internal Medicine (JWK, HY), Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Republic of Korea.
    • Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Feb 1; 95 (7): e2775.

    AbstractDespite the rapid penetration of social media in modern life, there has been limited research conducted on whether social media serves as a credible source of health information. In this study, we propose to identify colorectal cancer information on Twitter and assess its informational credibility. We collected Twitter messages containing colorectal cancer-related keywords, over a 3-month period. A review of sample tweets yielded content and user categorization schemes. The results of the sample analysis were applied to classify all collected tweets and users, using a machine learning technique. The credibility of the information in the sampled tweets was evaluated. A total of 76,119 tweets were analyzed. Individual users authored the majority of tweets (n = 68,982, 90.6%). They mostly tweeted about news articles/research (n = 16,761, 22.0%) and risk/prevention (n = 14,767, 19.4%). Medical professional users generated only 2.0% of total tweets (n = 1509), and medical institutions rarely tweeted (n = 417, 0.6%). Organizations tended to tweet more about information than did individuals (85.2% vs 63.1%; P < 0.001). Credibility analysis of medically relevant sample tweets revealed that most were medically correct (n = 1763, 84.5%). Among those, more frequently retweeted tweets contained more medically correct information than randomly selected tweets (90.7% vs 83.2%; P < 0.01). Our results demonstrate an interest in and an engagement with colorectal cancer information from a large number and variety of users. Coupled with the Internet's potential to increase social support, Twitter may contribute to enhancing public health and empowering users, when used with proper caution.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…