Colorectal Cancer Racial Equity Post Volume, Content, and Exposure: Observational Study Using Twitter Data.

IF 5.8 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Chau Tong, Drew Margolin, Jeff Niederdeppe, Rumi Chunara, Jiawei Liu, Lea Jih-Vieira, Andy J King
{"title":"Colorectal Cancer Racial Equity Post Volume, Content, and Exposure: Observational Study Using Twitter Data.","authors":"Chau Tong, Drew Margolin, Jeff Niederdeppe, Rumi Chunara, Jiawei Liu, Lea Jih-Vieira, Andy J King","doi":"10.2196/63864","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Racial inequity in health outcomes, particularly in colorectal cancer (CRC), remains one of the most pressing issues in cancer communication and public health. Social media platforms like Twitter (now X) provide opportunities to disseminate health equity information widely, yet little is known about the availability, content, and reach of racial health equity information related to CRC on these platforms. Addressing this gap is essential to leveraging social media for equitable health communication.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to analyze the volume, content, and exposure of CRC racial health equity tweets from identified CRC equity disseminator accounts on Twitter. These accounts were defined as those actively sharing information related to racial equity in CRC outcomes. By examining the behavior and impact of these disseminators, this study provides insights into how health equity content is shared and received on social media.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We identified accounts that posted CRC-related content on Twitter between 2019 and 2021. Accounts were classified as CRC equity disseminators (n=798) if they followed at least 2 CRC racial equity organization accounts. We analyzed the volume and content of racial equity-related CRC tweets (n=1134) from these accounts and categorized them by account type (experts vs nonexperts). Additionally, we evaluated exposure by analyzing follower reach (n=6,266,269) and the role of broker accounts-accounts serving as unique sources of CRC racial equity information to their followers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 19,559 tweets posted by 798 CRC equity disseminators, only 5.8% (n=1134) mentioned racially and ethnically minoritized groups. Most of these tweets (641/1134, 57%) addressed disparities in outcomes, while fewer emphasized actionable content, such as symptoms (11/1134, 1%) or screening procedures (159/1134, 14%). Expert accounts (n=479; 716 tweets) were more likely to post CRC equity tweets compared with nonexpert accounts (n=319; 418 tweets). Broker accounts (n=500), or those with a substantial portion of followers relying on them for equity-related information, demonstrated the highest capacity for exposing followers to CRC equity content, thereby extending the reach of these critical messages to underserved communities.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study emphasizes the critical roles played by expert and broker accounts in disseminating CRC racial equity information on social media. Despite the limited volume of equity-focused content, broker accounts were crucial in reaching otherwise unexposed audiences. Public health practitioners should focus on encouraging equity disseminators to share more actionable information, such as symptoms and screening benefits, and implement measures to amplify the reach of such content on social media. Strengthening these efforts could help bridge disparities in cancer outcomes among racially minoritized groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":16337,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Internet Research","volume":"27 ","pages":"e63864"},"PeriodicalIF":5.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Internet Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/63864","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Racial inequity in health outcomes, particularly in colorectal cancer (CRC), remains one of the most pressing issues in cancer communication and public health. Social media platforms like Twitter (now X) provide opportunities to disseminate health equity information widely, yet little is known about the availability, content, and reach of racial health equity information related to CRC on these platforms. Addressing this gap is essential to leveraging social media for equitable health communication.

Objective: This study aims to analyze the volume, content, and exposure of CRC racial health equity tweets from identified CRC equity disseminator accounts on Twitter. These accounts were defined as those actively sharing information related to racial equity in CRC outcomes. By examining the behavior and impact of these disseminators, this study provides insights into how health equity content is shared and received on social media.

Methods: We identified accounts that posted CRC-related content on Twitter between 2019 and 2021. Accounts were classified as CRC equity disseminators (n=798) if they followed at least 2 CRC racial equity organization accounts. We analyzed the volume and content of racial equity-related CRC tweets (n=1134) from these accounts and categorized them by account type (experts vs nonexperts). Additionally, we evaluated exposure by analyzing follower reach (n=6,266,269) and the role of broker accounts-accounts serving as unique sources of CRC racial equity information to their followers.

Results: Among 19,559 tweets posted by 798 CRC equity disseminators, only 5.8% (n=1134) mentioned racially and ethnically minoritized groups. Most of these tweets (641/1134, 57%) addressed disparities in outcomes, while fewer emphasized actionable content, such as symptoms (11/1134, 1%) or screening procedures (159/1134, 14%). Expert accounts (n=479; 716 tweets) were more likely to post CRC equity tweets compared with nonexpert accounts (n=319; 418 tweets). Broker accounts (n=500), or those with a substantial portion of followers relying on them for equity-related information, demonstrated the highest capacity for exposing followers to CRC equity content, thereby extending the reach of these critical messages to underserved communities.

Conclusions: This study emphasizes the critical roles played by expert and broker accounts in disseminating CRC racial equity information on social media. Despite the limited volume of equity-focused content, broker accounts were crucial in reaching otherwise unexposed audiences. Public health practitioners should focus on encouraging equity disseminators to share more actionable information, such as symptoms and screening benefits, and implement measures to amplify the reach of such content on social media. Strengthening these efforts could help bridge disparities in cancer outcomes among racially minoritized groups.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.40
自引率
5.40%
发文量
654
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR) is a highly respected publication in the field of health informatics and health services. With a founding date in 1999, JMIR has been a pioneer in the field for over two decades. As a leader in the industry, the journal focuses on digital health, data science, health informatics, and emerging technologies for health, medicine, and biomedical research. It is recognized as a top publication in these disciplines, ranking in the first quartile (Q1) by Impact Factor. Notably, JMIR holds the prestigious position of being ranked #1 on Google Scholar within the "Medical Informatics" discipline.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信