Online community discourse on spinal cord injury research.

Q2 Social Sciences
Salwa B A Malhas, Tanya A Barretto, Judy Illes
{"title":"Online community discourse on spinal cord injury research.","authors":"Salwa B A Malhas, Tanya A Barretto, Judy Illes","doi":"10.1080/17538068.2025.2491968","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Public perceptions of spinal cord injury (SCI) research can influence trust in scientific advancements and therapeutic interventions. Social media is a useful tool to provide insight into these perceptions and related values. This study examines comments to posts pertaining to SCI research reports on a widely used social media platform.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We used search term 'spinal cord injury' to collect posts and associated top-level comments spanning 2016-2023 from Reddit. Posts were included if they contained research reports on one of the following SCI interventions: biologic and synthetic materials; devices and technologies; physical and behavioral interventions; and pharmacological treatments. Each unique comment per Reddit post was coded for user self-identification, format, intervention, topic, and tone.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We retrieved and analyzed 994 comments from 24 posts<b><i>.</i></b> Key topics of interest were: scientific progress (52%, 514/994), study details (30%, 301/994), and ethical implications (24%, 237/994) across interventions. Comments were generally neutral in tone. Fifty-four comments were made by users who self-identified as persons with lived experience of a spinal cord-related condition. Ethics-related comments (237/994) were focused on the themes of access (35%, 84/237) and beneficence (24%, 58/237).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The SCI community is actively using the social media platform Reddit to seek information about research and its ethical dimensions. Across users, a significant proportion of comments are on research progress, ethics and study information. The largest proportion of ethics-focused comments by self-identifiers are on agency, and then equally on access, values, and resilience; ethics-related comments by non-self-identifiers focus on access, and beneficence.</p>","PeriodicalId":38052,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Communication in Healthcare","volume":" ","pages":"1-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Communication in Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17538068.2025.2491968","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Public perceptions of spinal cord injury (SCI) research can influence trust in scientific advancements and therapeutic interventions. Social media is a useful tool to provide insight into these perceptions and related values. This study examines comments to posts pertaining to SCI research reports on a widely used social media platform.

Method: We used search term 'spinal cord injury' to collect posts and associated top-level comments spanning 2016-2023 from Reddit. Posts were included if they contained research reports on one of the following SCI interventions: biologic and synthetic materials; devices and technologies; physical and behavioral interventions; and pharmacological treatments. Each unique comment per Reddit post was coded for user self-identification, format, intervention, topic, and tone.

Results: We retrieved and analyzed 994 comments from 24 posts. Key topics of interest were: scientific progress (52%, 514/994), study details (30%, 301/994), and ethical implications (24%, 237/994) across interventions. Comments were generally neutral in tone. Fifty-four comments were made by users who self-identified as persons with lived experience of a spinal cord-related condition. Ethics-related comments (237/994) were focused on the themes of access (35%, 84/237) and beneficence (24%, 58/237).

Conclusion: The SCI community is actively using the social media platform Reddit to seek information about research and its ethical dimensions. Across users, a significant proportion of comments are on research progress, ethics and study information. The largest proportion of ethics-focused comments by self-identifiers are on agency, and then equally on access, values, and resilience; ethics-related comments by non-self-identifiers focus on access, and beneficence.

关于脊髓损伤研究的在线社区讨论。
背景:公众对脊髓损伤(SCI)研究的认知可以影响对科学进步和治疗干预措施的信任。社交媒体是一个有用的工具,可以让我们深入了解这些观念和相关价值观。本研究调查了在一个广泛使用的社交媒体平台上对SCI研究报告相关帖子的评论。方法:我们使用搜索词“脊髓损伤”收集Reddit上2016-2023年的帖子和相关的顶级评论。如果帖子包含以下SCI干预措施之一的研究报告,则将其包括在内:生物和合成材料;设备和技术;身体和行为干预;还有药物治疗。每个帖子的评论都是根据用户自我识别、格式、干预、主题和语气进行编码的。结果:我们从24篇帖子中检索并分析了994条评论。感兴趣的关键主题是:干预措施的科学进展(52%,514/994)、研究细节(30%,301/994)和伦理影响(24%,237/994)。评论的语气总体上是中性的。54条评论是由自认为有脊髓相关疾病生活经历的用户提出的。与伦理相关的评论(237/994)集中在获取(35%,84/237)和慈善(24%,58/237)的主题上。结论:SCI社区正在积极使用社交媒体平台Reddit来寻求有关研究及其伦理维度的信息。在所有用户中,很大一部分评论是关于研究进展、伦理和研究信息的。自我认同者以伦理为中心的评论中,最主要的是代理,其次是获取、价值观和复原力;非自我标识符的伦理相关评论集中在获取和善行上。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Communication in Healthcare
Journal of Communication in Healthcare Social Sciences-Communication
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
44
×
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