↓ Skip to main content

Assessing the Viability of Social Media for Disseminating Evidence-Based Nutrition Practice Guideline Through Content Analysis of Twitter Messages and Health Professional Interviews: An Observational…

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Internet Research, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Assessing the Viability of Social Media for Disseminating Evidence-Based Nutrition Practice Guideline Through Content Analysis of Twitter Messages and Health Professional Interviews: An Observational Study
Published in
Journal of Medical Internet Research, November 2016
DOI 10.2196/jmir.5811
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rosa K Hand, Hand, Rosa K, Kenne, Deric, Wolfram, Taylor M, Abram, Jenica K, Fleming, Michael, Deric Kenne, Taylor M Wolfram, Jenica K Abram, Michael Fleming

Abstract

Given the high penetration of social media use, social media has been proposed as a method for the dissemination of information to health professionals and patients. This study explored the potential for social media dissemination of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Evidence-Based Nutrition Practice Guideline (EBNPG) for Heart Failure (HF). The objectives were to (1) describe the existing social media content on HF, including message content, source, and target audience, and (2) describe the attitude of physicians and registered dietitian nutritionists (RDNs) who care for outpatient HF patients toward the use of social media as a method to obtain information for themselves and to share this information with patients. The methods were divided into 2 parts. Part 1 involved conducting a content analysis of tweets related to HF, which were downloaded from Twitonomy and assigned codes for message content (19 codes), source (9 codes), and target audience (9 codes); code frequency was described. A comparison in the popularity of tweets (those marked as favorites or retweeted) based on applied codes was made using t tests. Part 2 involved conducting phone interviews with RDNs and physicians to describe health professionals' attitude toward the use of social media to communicate general health information and information specifically related to the HF EBNPG. Interviews were transcribed and coded; exemplar quotes representing frequent themes are presented. The sample included 294 original tweets with the hashtag "#heartfailure." The most frequent message content codes were "HF awareness" (166/294, 56.5%) and "patient support" (97/294, 33.0%). The most frequent source codes were "professional, government, patient advocacy organization, or charity" (112/277, 40.4%) and "patient or family" (105/277, 37.9%). The most frequent target audience codes were "unable to identify" (111/277, 40.1%) and "other" (55/277, 19.9%). Significant differences were found in the popularity of tweets with (mean 1, SD 1.3 favorites) or without (mean 0.7, SD 1.3 favorites), the content code being "HF research" (P=.049). Tweets with the source code "professional, government, patient advocacy organizations, or charities" were significantly more likely to be marked as a favorite and retweeted than those without this source code (mean 1.2, SD 1.4 vs mean 0.8, SD 1.2, P=.03) and (mean 1.5, SD 1.8 vs mean 0.9, SD 2.0, P=.03). Interview participants believed that social media was a useful way to gather professional information. They did not believe that social media was useful for communicating with patients due to privacy concerns and the fact that the information had to be kept general rather than be tailored for a specific patient and the belief that their patients did not use social media or technology. Existing Twitter content related to HF comes from a combination of patients and evidence-based organizations; however, there is little nutrition content. That gap may present an opportunity for EBNPG dissemination. Health professionals use social media to gather information for themselves but are skeptical of its value when communicating with patients, particularly due to privacy concerns and misconceptions about the characteristics of social media users.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 2%
Unknown 48 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 20%
Student > Master 9 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Librarian 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 17 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 20%
Social Sciences 8 16%
Unspecified 7 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 14%
Computer Science 6 12%
Other 11 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 September 2017.
All research outputs
#2,422,738
of 13,325,502 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Internet Research
#1,900
of 3,023 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,788
of 282,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Internet Research
#50
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,325,502 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,023 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.7. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 282,982 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.