Characterisation of social media conversations on syphilis: an unobtrusive observational study
Abby C. Dawson A , Alyssa K. Fitzpatrick B , Janet M. Matthews A , Andrew A. K. Nguyen A , Kelly Papanaoum B and Justine R. Smith
A *
A
B
Abstract
Conversations around disease conducted through social media provide a means for capturing public perspectives that may be useful in considering public health approaches. Syphilis is a sexually transmitted disease that is re-emerging. We sought to characterise online discourse on syphilis using data collected from the social media platform, Twitter.
We extracted English-language tweets containing the word ‘syphilis’ posted on Twitter in 2019. Tweet identification number and URL, date and time of posting, number of retweets and likes, and the author’s screen name, username and biographical statement were included in the dataset. A systematically sampled 10% subset of the data was subjected to qualitative analysis, involving categorisation on content. All tweets assigned to the category of medical resource were assessed for clinical accuracy. The engagement ratio for each category was calculated as (retweets + likes):tweets.
In 2019, 111,388 tweets mentioning syphilis were posted by 69,921 authors. The most frequent content category – totalling 5370 tweets (48%) – was a joke. Of 1762 tweets (16%) categorised as a medical resource, 1484 (84%) were medically correct and 240 (14%) were medically incorrect; for 38 (2%), medical accuracy could not be judged from the information posted. Tweets categorised as personal experiences had the highest engagement ratio at approximately 19:1. Medical resource tweets had an engagement ratio of approximately 7:1.
We found medical information about syphilis was limited on Twitter. As tweets about personal experiences generate high engagement, coupling an experience with information may provide opportunity for public health education.
Keywords: medical resource, sexually transmitted disease, social media, syphilis, Twitter, X.
References
1 Peeling RW, Mabey D, Kamb ML, Chen X-S, Radolf JD, Benzaken AS. Syphilis. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2017; 3: 17073.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
2 Willeford WG, Bachmann LH. Syphilis ascendant: a brief history and modern trends. Trop Dis Travel Med Vaccines 2016; 2: 20.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
3 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Syphilis elimination effort. 2013. Available at https://www.cdc.gov/stopsyphilis/default.htm
4 Read P, Fairley CK, Chow EPF. Increasing trends of syphilis among men who have sex with men in high income countries. Sex Health 2015; 12(2): 155-163.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
5 Rowley J, Vander Hoorn S, Korenromp E, Low N, Unemo M, Abu-Raddad LJ, et al. Chlamydia, gonorrhoea, trichomoniasis and syphilis: global prevalence and incidence estimates, 2016. Bull World Health Organ 2019; 97(8): 548-562P.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
6 Dowshen N, Lee S, Matty Lehman B, Castillo M, Mollen C. IknowUshould2: feasibility of a youth-driven social media campaign to promote STI and HIV testing among adolescents in Philadelphia. AIDS Behav 2015; 19: 106-111.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
7 Coughlan E, Young H, Parkes C, Coshall M, Dickson N, Psutka R, et al. A novel response to an outbreak of infectious syphilis in Christchurch, New Zealand. Sex Health 2015; 12(2): 170-173.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
8 Chunara R, Andrews JR, Brownstein JS. Social and news media enable estimation of epidemiological patterns early in the 2010 Haitian cholera outbreak. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2012; 86(1): 39-45.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
9 Chew C, Eysenbach G. Pandemics in the age of Twitter: content analysis of Tweets during the 2009 H1N1 outbreak. PLoS ONE 2010; 5(11): e14118.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
10 Zhang Y, He D, Sang Y. Facebook as a platform for health information and communication: a case study of a diabetes group. J Med Syst 2013; 37(3): 9942.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
11 Young SD, Mercer N, Weiss RE, Torrone EA, Aral SO. Using social media as a tool to predict syphilis. Prev Med 2018; 109: 58-61.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
12 Krauss MJ, Sowles SJ, Moreno M, Zewdie K, Grucza RA, Bierut LJ, et al. Hookah-related Twitter chatter: a content analysis. Prev Chronic Dis 2015; 12: 150140.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
13 Sabus C, Johns B, Schultz N, Gagnon K. Exploration of content and reach of physical therapy-related discussion on Twitter. Phys Ther 2019; 99(8): 1048-1055.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
14 Ahmed W, Vidal-Alaball J, Downing J, Lopez Segui F. COVID-19 and the 5G conspiracy theory: social network analysis of Twitter data. J Med Internet Res 2020; 22(5): e19458.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
15 Meadows CZ, Tang L, Liu W. Twitter message types, health beliefs, and vaccine attitudes during the 2015 measles outbreak in California. Am J Infect Control 2019; 47(11): 1314-1318.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
16 Gabarron E, Serrano JA, Wynn R, Lau AYS. Tweet content related to sexually transmitted diseases: no joking matter. J Med Internet Res 2014; 16(10): e228.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
17 Oh J, Bonett S, Kranzler EC, Saconi B, Stevens R. User- and message-level correlates of endorsement and engagement for HIV-related messages on Twitter: cross-sectional study. JMIR Public Health Surveill 2022; 8(6): e32718.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
18 Suarez-Lledo V, Alvarez-Galvez J. Prevalence of health misinformation on social media: systematic review. J Med Internet Res 2021; 23(1): e17187.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
19 Peeling RW, Mabey D, Chen X-S, Garcia PJ. Syphilis. Lancet 2023; 402(10398): 336-346.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
20 Swetland SB, Rothrock AN, Andris H, Davis B, Nguyen L, Davis P, et al. Accuracy of health-related information regarding COVID-19 on Twitter during a global pandemic. World Med Health Policy 2021; 13(3): 503-517.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
21 Pershad Y, Hangge P, Albadawi H, Oklu R. Social medicine: Twitter in healthcare. J Clin Med 2018; 7(6): 121.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
