Display options
Cite
Stens O, Weisman MH, Simard J, et al. Insights From Twitter Conversations on Lupus and Reproductive Health: Protocol for a Content Analysis. JMIR Res Protoc. 2020;9(8):e15623doi: 10.2196/15623.
Stens, O., Weisman, M. H., Simard, J., & Reuter, K. (2020). Insights From Twitter Conversations on Lupus and Reproductive Health: Protocol for a Content Analysis. JMIR research protocols, 9(8), e15623. https://doi.org/10.2196/15623
Stens, Oleg, et al. "Insights From Twitter Conversations on Lupus and Reproductive Health: Protocol for a Content Analysis." JMIR research protocols vol. 9,8 (2020): e15623. doi: https://doi.org/10.2196/15623
Stens O, Weisman MH, Simard J, Reuter K. Insights From Twitter Conversations on Lupus and Reproductive Health: Protocol for a Content Analysis. JMIR Res Protoc. 2020 Aug 26;9(8):e15623. doi: 10.2196/15623. PMID: 32844753; PMCID: PMC7481870.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

JMIR Res Protoc. 2020 Aug 26;9(8):e15623. doi: 10.2196/15623.

Insights From Twitter Conversations on Lupus and Reproductive Health: Protocol for a Content Analysis.

JMIR research protocols

Oleg Stens, Michael H Weisman, Julia Simard, Katja Reuter

Affiliations

  1. Department of Internal Medicine, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA, United States.
  2. David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, United States.
  3. Division of Epidemiology, Department of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States.
  4. Institute for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Research, Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, CA, United States.
  5. Southern California Clinical and Translational Science Institute, Keck School of Medicine of USC, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, United States.

PMID: 32844753 PMCID: PMC7481870 DOI: 10.2196/15623

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is the most common form of lupus. It is a chronic autoimmune disease that predominantly affects women of reproductive age, impacting contraception, fertility, and pregnancy. Although clinic-based studies have contributed to an increased understanding of reproductive health care needs of patients with SLE, misinformation abounds and perspectives on reproductive health issues among patients with lupus remain poorly understood. Social networks such as Twitter may serve as a data source for exploring how lupus patients communicate about their health issues, thus adding a dimension to enrich our understanding of communication regarding reproductive health in this unique patient population.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to conduct a content analysis of Twitter data published by users in English in the United States from September 1, 2017, to October 31, 2018, in order to examine people's perspectives on reproductive health among patients with lupus.

METHODS: This study will analyze user-generated posts that include keywords related to lupus and reproductive health from Twitter. To access public Twitter user data, we will use Symplur Signals, a health care social media analytics platform. Text classifiers will be used to identify topics in posts. Posts will be classified manually into the a priori and emergent categories. Based on the information available in a user's Twitter profile (ie, username, description, and profile image), we will further attempt to characterize the user who generated the post. We will use descriptive statistics to analyze the data and identify the most prevalent topics in the Twitter content among patients with lupus.

RESULTS: This study has been funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) through their Clinical and Translational Science Awards program. The Institutional Review Board at the University of Southern California approved the study (HS-18-00912). Data extraction and cleaning are complete. We obtained 47,715 Twitter posts containing terms related to "lupus" from users in the United States, published in English between September 1, 2017, and October 31, 2018. We will include 40,885 posts in the analysis, which will be completed in fall 2020. This study was supported by funds from the has been funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) through their Clinical and Translational Science Awards program.

CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study will provide pilot data on the use of Twitter among patients with lupus. Our findings will shed light on whether Twitter is a promising data source for learning about reproductive health issues expressed among patients with lupus. The data will also help to determine whether Twitter can serve as a potential outreach platform for raising awareness of lupus and reproductive health and for implementing relevant health interventions.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/15623.

©Oleg Stens, Michael H Weisman, Julia Simard, Katja Reuter. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (http://www.researchprotocols.org), 26.08.2020.

Keywords: Twitter; fertility; infodemiology; infoveillance; listening; lupus; monitoring; patient opinion; reproductive health; social media; social network; surveillance

References

  1. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2019 Feb;45(1):113-126 - PubMed
  2. J Med Internet Res. 2017 Aug 17;19(8):e280 - PubMed
  3. Cureus. 2017 Oct 9;9(10):e1762 - PubMed
  4. Int J Med Inform. 2019 Nov;131:103955 - PubMed
  5. AIDS Behav. 2017 Jul;21(Suppl 1):114-120 - PubMed
  6. J Med Internet Res. 2016 Aug 09;18(8):e219 - PubMed
  7. Am J Public Health. 2017 Jan;107(1):e1-e8 - PubMed
  8. Semin Oncol Nurs. 2011 Aug;27(3):169-82 - PubMed
  9. J Med Internet Res. 2016 Feb 26;18(2):e41 - PubMed
  10. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Feb 12;7(2):e12264 - PubMed
  11. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Apr;80(4):957-969 - PubMed
  12. BMJ. 2015 Feb 10;350:h256 - PubMed
  13. J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81 - PubMed
  14. Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Aug;114(2 Pt 1):341-53 - PubMed
  15. JAMA. 2014 Apr 9;311(14):1399-400 - PubMed
  16. J Rheumatol. 2018 Oct;45(10):1477-1490 - PubMed
  17. J Clin Transl Res. 2018 Mar 20;3(Suppl 3):407-410 - PubMed
  18. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012;22(3):276-82 - PubMed
  19. Trends Mol Med. 2015 Sep;21(9):528-9 - PubMed
  20. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs. 2015 Jul-Aug;40(4):220-6; quiz E15-6 - PubMed
  21. J Med Internet Res. 2017 Apr 06;19(4):e104 - PubMed
  22. J Oncol Pract. 2012 Sep;8(5):e114-24 - PubMed
  23. Health Info Libr J. 2018 Jun;35(2):91-120 - PubMed
  24. J Med Internet Res. 2015 Jul 30;17(7):e188 - PubMed
  25. J Med Internet Res. 2014 Aug 04;16(8):e182 - PubMed
  26. JMIR Ment Health. 2018 Dec 13;5(4):e11483 - PubMed
  27. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2014 Feb;66(2):357-68 - PubMed
  28. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2018 Dec 06;4(4):e10834 - PubMed
  29. Am J Prev Med. 2011 May;40(5 Suppl 2):S154-8 - PubMed
  30. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Mar 12;73(9):1089-1093 - PubMed
  31. Sci Rep. 2018 Sep 18;8(1):13963 - PubMed
  32. J Med Internet Res. 2019 Mar 26;21(3):e11014 - PubMed
  33. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2019 Jun;3:1-10 - PubMed
  34. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017 Mar;76(3):476-485 - PubMed
  35. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2016 Apr 28;2(1):e17 - PubMed
  36. Am J Health Behav. 2019 Mar 1;43(2):326-336 - PubMed
  37. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jun 02;6:CD001006 - PubMed
  38. J Med Internet Res. 2012 Feb 28;14(1):e30 - PubMed
  39. JAMA Oncol. 2016 Mar;2(3):392-4 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support