了解阿片类药物危机的政治框架:美国参议员推文内容分析》。

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 COMMUNICATION
Health Communication Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-11 DOI:10.1080/10410236.2024.2364465
Anita Silwal, Zane A Dayton
{"title":"了解阿片类药物危机的政治框架:美国参议员推文内容分析》。","authors":"Anita Silwal, Zane A Dayton","doi":"10.1080/10410236.2024.2364465","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The opioid epidemic in the United States is a public health emergency that has triggered calls to action for policy reforms. However, variations exist between political parties and policymakers on how this issue is communicated to the public. With the substantial growth in the use of social media by policymakers as a tool for disseminating policy-related information affecting their constituents, examining their communication strategies on public health emergency issues is imperative. To better understand how U.S. Senate members use Twitter (now known as X) to communicate opioid-related issues, we conducted a quantitative content analysis of their opioid-related tweets (<i>N</i> = 697) from January 1 to August 25 2022. Findings reveal a significant political divide regarding how senators characterize the opioid crisis, influencing user engagement on Twitter. Guided by the moral foundation theory, the results suggest that Democratic senators were more likely to employ care/harm or fairness/cheating moral foundations, relative to Republican senators, who used more loyalty/betrayal or authority/subversion. Additionally, Democratic senators framed the opioid crisis as a health or policy issue, relative to Republican senators' immigration/border frame. For inclusion of information sources, Democratic senators included significantly more health sources compared to Republican senators' use of media or law enforcement sources. Issue frame and source type significantly influenced user engagement in the form of likes and retweets. These findings provide both practical and theoretical implications.</p>","PeriodicalId":12889,"journal":{"name":"Health Communication","volume":" ","pages":"748-762"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Understanding the Political Frames of the Opioid Crisis: A Content Analysis of U.S. Senators' Tweets.\",\"authors\":\"Anita Silwal, Zane A Dayton\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10410236.2024.2364465\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The opioid epidemic in the United States is a public health emergency that has triggered calls to action for policy reforms. However, variations exist between political parties and policymakers on how this issue is communicated to the public. With the substantial growth in the use of social media by policymakers as a tool for disseminating policy-related information affecting their constituents, examining their communication strategies on public health emergency issues is imperative. To better understand how U.S. Senate members use Twitter (now known as X) to communicate opioid-related issues, we conducted a quantitative content analysis of their opioid-related tweets (<i>N</i> = 697) from January 1 to August 25 2022. Findings reveal a significant political divide regarding how senators characterize the opioid crisis, influencing user engagement on Twitter. Guided by the moral foundation theory, the results suggest that Democratic senators were more likely to employ care/harm or fairness/cheating moral foundations, relative to Republican senators, who used more loyalty/betrayal or authority/subversion. Additionally, Democratic senators framed the opioid crisis as a health or policy issue, relative to Republican senators' immigration/border frame. For inclusion of information sources, Democratic senators included significantly more health sources compared to Republican senators' use of media or law enforcement sources. Issue frame and source type significantly influenced user engagement in the form of likes and retweets. These findings provide both practical and theoretical implications.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12889,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Communication\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"748-762\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Communication\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2024.2364465\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Communication","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2024.2364465","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

阿片类药物在美国的流行是一个公共卫生紧急事件,引发了对政策改革采取行动的呼吁。然而,各政党和政策制定者在如何向公众宣传这一问题上存在差异。随着政策制定者越来越多地使用社交媒体作为传播影响其选民的政策相关信息的工具,研究他们在公共卫生突发事件问题上的沟通策略势在必行。为了更好地了解美国参议院议员如何使用 Twitter(现在称为 X)来传播阿片类药物相关问题,我们对他们在 2022 年 1 月 1 日至 8 月 25 日期间发布的阿片类药物相关推文(N = 697)进行了定量内容分析。研究结果表明,参议员们在如何描述阿片类药物危机方面存在明显的政治分歧,从而影响了用户在推特上的参与度。在道德基础理论的指导下,研究结果表明民主党参议员更倾向于使用关爱/伤害或公平/欺骗的道德基础,而共和党参议员则更多地使用忠诚/背叛或权威/颠覆的道德基础。此外,相对于共和党参议员的移民/边境框架,民主党参议员将阿片类药物危机视为健康或政策问题。在纳入信息来源方面,民主党参议员纳入的健康信息来源明显多于共和党参议员使用的媒体或执法信息来源。议题框架和信息来源类型极大地影响了用户以点赞和转发形式的参与度。这些发现具有实践和理论意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Understanding the Political Frames of the Opioid Crisis: A Content Analysis of U.S. Senators' Tweets.

The opioid epidemic in the United States is a public health emergency that has triggered calls to action for policy reforms. However, variations exist between political parties and policymakers on how this issue is communicated to the public. With the substantial growth in the use of social media by policymakers as a tool for disseminating policy-related information affecting their constituents, examining their communication strategies on public health emergency issues is imperative. To better understand how U.S. Senate members use Twitter (now known as X) to communicate opioid-related issues, we conducted a quantitative content analysis of their opioid-related tweets (N = 697) from January 1 to August 25 2022. Findings reveal a significant political divide regarding how senators characterize the opioid crisis, influencing user engagement on Twitter. Guided by the moral foundation theory, the results suggest that Democratic senators were more likely to employ care/harm or fairness/cheating moral foundations, relative to Republican senators, who used more loyalty/betrayal or authority/subversion. Additionally, Democratic senators framed the opioid crisis as a health or policy issue, relative to Republican senators' immigration/border frame. For inclusion of information sources, Democratic senators included significantly more health sources compared to Republican senators' use of media or law enforcement sources. Issue frame and source type significantly influenced user engagement in the form of likes and retweets. These findings provide both practical and theoretical implications.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
10.30%
发文量
184
期刊介绍: As an outlet for scholarly intercourse between medical and social sciences, this noteworthy journal seeks to improve practical communication between caregivers and patients and between institutions and the public. Outstanding editorial board members and contributors from both medical and social science arenas collaborate to meet the challenges inherent in this goal. Although most inclusions are data-based, the journal also publishes pedagogical, methodological, theoretical, and applied articles using both quantitative or qualitative methods.
×
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