社交媒体上的内容质量与分享实践:对Twitter上营养信息的横断面分析。

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 NUTRITION & DIETETICS
Cassandra H Ellis, Peter Ho, J Bernadette Moore, Charlotte El Evans
{"title":"社交媒体上的内容质量与分享实践:对Twitter上营养信息的横断面分析。","authors":"Cassandra H Ellis, Peter Ho, J Bernadette Moore, Charlotte El Evans","doi":"10.1017/S1368980025000461","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To use the validated Online Quality Assessment Tool (OQAT) to assess the quality of online nutrition information.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>The social networking platform was formerly known as Twitter (now X).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Utilising the Twitter search application programming interface (API; v1·1), all tweets that included the word 'nutrition', along with associated metadata, were collected on seven randomly selected days in 2021. Tweets were screened, those without a URL were removed and the remainder were grouped on retweet status. Articles (shared via URL) were assessed using the OQAT, and quality levels were assigned (low, satisfactory, high). Mean differences between retweeted and non-retweeted data were assessed by the Mann-Whitney <i>U</i> test. The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to compare information quality by source.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 10 573 URL were collected from 18 230 tweets. After screening for relevance, 1005 articles were assessed (9568 were out of scope) sourced from professional blogs (<i>n</i> 354), news outlets (<i>n</i> 213), companies (<i>n</i> 166), personal blogs (<i>n</i> 120), NGO (<i>n</i> 60), magazines (<i>n</i> 55), universities (<i>n</i> 19) and government (<i>n</i> 18). Rasch measures indicated the quality levels: 0-3·48, poor, 3·49-6·3, satisfactory and 6·4-10, high quality. Personal and company-authored blogs were more likely to rank as poor quality. There was a significant difference in the quality of retweeted (<i>n</i> 267, sum of rank, 461·6) and non-retweeted articles (<i>n</i> 738, sum of rank, 518·0), U = 87 475, <i>P</i>= 0·006 but no significant effect of information source on quality.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Lower-quality nutrition articles were more likely to be retweeted. Caution is required when using or sharing articles, particularly from companies and personal blogs, which tend to be lower-quality sources of nutritional information.</p>","PeriodicalId":20951,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Nutrition","volume":"28 1","pages":"e77"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12100564/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Content quality versus sharing practices on social media: a cross-sectional analysis of nutrition information on Twitter.\",\"authors\":\"Cassandra H Ellis, Peter Ho, J Bernadette Moore, Charlotte El Evans\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S1368980025000461\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To use the validated Online Quality Assessment Tool (OQAT) to assess the quality of online nutrition information.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>The social networking platform was formerly known as Twitter (now X).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Utilising the Twitter search application programming interface (API; v1·1), all tweets that included the word 'nutrition', along with associated metadata, were collected on seven randomly selected days in 2021. Tweets were screened, those without a URL were removed and the remainder were grouped on retweet status. Articles (shared via URL) were assessed using the OQAT, and quality levels were assigned (low, satisfactory, high). Mean differences between retweeted and non-retweeted data were assessed by the Mann-Whitney <i>U</i> test. The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to compare information quality by source.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 10 573 URL were collected from 18 230 tweets. After screening for relevance, 1005 articles were assessed (9568 were out of scope) sourced from professional blogs (<i>n</i> 354), news outlets (<i>n</i> 213), companies (<i>n</i> 166), personal blogs (<i>n</i> 120), NGO (<i>n</i> 60), magazines (<i>n</i> 55), universities (<i>n</i> 19) and government (<i>n</i> 18). Rasch measures indicated the quality levels: 0-3·48, poor, 3·49-6·3, satisfactory and 6·4-10, high quality. Personal and company-authored blogs were more likely to rank as poor quality. There was a significant difference in the quality of retweeted (<i>n</i> 267, sum of rank, 461·6) and non-retweeted articles (<i>n</i> 738, sum of rank, 518·0), U = 87 475, <i>P</i>= 0·006 but no significant effect of information source on quality.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Lower-quality nutrition articles were more likely to be retweeted. Caution is required when using or sharing articles, particularly from companies and personal blogs, which tend to be lower-quality sources of nutritional information.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20951,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public Health Nutrition\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"e77\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12100564/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Public Health Nutrition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980025000461\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NUTRITION & DIETETICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health Nutrition","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980025000461","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:利用经验证的在线营养信息质量评价工具(OQAT)对在线营养信息质量进行评价。背景:这个社交网络平台的前身是Twitter(现为X)。设计:利用Twitter搜索应用程序编程接口(API);V1·1),所有包含“营养”一词的推文以及相关的元数据,都是在2021年随机选择的七天内收集的。推文被筛选,那些没有URL的被删除,其余的按转发状态分组。文章(通过URL共享)使用OQAT进行评估,并分配质量水平(低、满意、高)。通过Mann-Whitney U检验评估转发和未转发数据之间的平均差异。采用Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel检验比较信息源的信息质量。结果:从18 230条推文中共收集到10 573个URL。筛选相关性后,评估了1005篇文章(9568篇超出范围),这些文章来自专业博客(354篇)、新闻媒体(213篇)、公司(166篇)、个人博客(120篇)、非政府组织(60篇)、杂志(55篇)、大学(19篇)和政府(18篇)。Rasch测量的质量等级为:0-3·48,差,3·49-6·3,满意,6·4-10,优质。个人和公司撰写的博客更有可能被评为质量差的博客。转发文章(n 267篇,秩和为461·6)与未转发文章(n 738篇,秩和为518·0)的质量存在显著差异,U = 87 475, P= 0.006,但信息源对质量的影响不显著。结论:低质量的营养文章更容易被转发。在使用或分享文章时需要谨慎,尤其是来自公司和个人博客的文章,它们往往是低质量的营养信息来源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Content quality versus sharing practices on social media: a cross-sectional analysis of nutrition information on Twitter.

Objective: To use the validated Online Quality Assessment Tool (OQAT) to assess the quality of online nutrition information.

Setting: The social networking platform was formerly known as Twitter (now X).

Design: Utilising the Twitter search application programming interface (API; v1·1), all tweets that included the word 'nutrition', along with associated metadata, were collected on seven randomly selected days in 2021. Tweets were screened, those without a URL were removed and the remainder were grouped on retweet status. Articles (shared via URL) were assessed using the OQAT, and quality levels were assigned (low, satisfactory, high). Mean differences between retweeted and non-retweeted data were assessed by the Mann-Whitney U test. The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to compare information quality by source.

Results: In total, 10 573 URL were collected from 18 230 tweets. After screening for relevance, 1005 articles were assessed (9568 were out of scope) sourced from professional blogs (n 354), news outlets (n 213), companies (n 166), personal blogs (n 120), NGO (n 60), magazines (n 55), universities (n 19) and government (n 18). Rasch measures indicated the quality levels: 0-3·48, poor, 3·49-6·3, satisfactory and 6·4-10, high quality. Personal and company-authored blogs were more likely to rank as poor quality. There was a significant difference in the quality of retweeted (n 267, sum of rank, 461·6) and non-retweeted articles (n 738, sum of rank, 518·0), U = 87 475, P= 0·006 but no significant effect of information source on quality.

Conclusions: Lower-quality nutrition articles were more likely to be retweeted. Caution is required when using or sharing articles, particularly from companies and personal blogs, which tend to be lower-quality sources of nutritional information.

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
Public Health Nutrition
Public Health Nutrition 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
6.20%
发文量
521
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Public Health Nutrition provides an international peer-reviewed forum for the publication and dissemination of research and scholarship aimed at understanding the causes of, and approaches and solutions to nutrition-related public health achievements, situations and problems around the world. The journal publishes original and commissioned articles, commentaries and discussion papers for debate. The journal is of interest to epidemiologists and health promotion specialists interested in the role of nutrition in disease prevention; academics and those involved in fieldwork and the application of research to identify practical solutions to important public health problems.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信