↓ Skip to main content

Ethical issues in using Twitter for population-level depression monitoring: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
4 blogs
twitter
36 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
91 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
265 Mendeley
citeulike
3 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
Ethical issues in using Twitter for population-level depression monitoring: a qualitative study
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12910-016-0105-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jude Mikal, Samantha Hurst, Mike Conway

Abstract

Recently, significant research effort has focused on using Twitter (and other social media) to investigate mental health at the population-level. While there has been influential work in developing ethical guidelines for Internet discussion forum-based research in public health, there is currently limited work focused on addressing ethical problems in Twitter-based public health research, and less still that considers these issues from users' own perspectives. In this work, we aim to investigate public attitudes towards utilizing public domain Twitter data for population-level mental health monitoring using a qualitative methodology. The study explores user perspectives in a series of five, 2-h focus group interviews. Following a semi-structured protocol, 26 Twitter users with and without a diagnosed history of depression discussed general Twitter use, along with privacy expectations, and ethical issues in using social media for health monitoring, with a particular focus on mental health monitoring. Transcripts were then transcribed, redacted, and coded using a constant comparative approach. While participants expressed a wide range of opinions, there was an overall trend towards a relatively positive view of using public domain Twitter data as a resource for population level mental health monitoring, provided that results are appropriately aggregated. Results are divided into five sections: (1) a profile of respondents' Twitter use patterns and use variability; (2) users' privacy expectations, including expectations regarding data reach and permanence; (3) attitudes towards social media based population-level health monitoring in general, and attitudes towards mental health monitoring in particular; (4) attitudes towards individual versus population-level health monitoring; and (5) users' own recommendations for the appropriate regulation of population-level mental health monitoring. Focus group data reveal a wide range of attitudes towards the use of public-domain social media "big data" in population health research, from enthusiasm, through acceptance, to opposition. Study results highlight new perspectives in the discussion of ethical use of public data, particularly with respect to consent, privacy, and oversight.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 265 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 260 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 38 14%
Student > Master 34 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 11%
Researcher 28 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 7%
Other 48 18%
Unknown 69 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 43 16%
Psychology 33 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 25 9%
Social Sciences 23 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 5%
Other 45 17%
Unknown 82 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 50. 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 20 October 2021.
All research outputs
#857,311
of 25,959,914 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#54
of 1,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,040
of 318,720 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#2
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,959,914 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,121 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
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 318,720 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.