4.5 Article

Virtual Zika transmission after the first US case: who said what and how it spread on Twitter

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INFECTION CONTROL
卷 46, 期 5, 页码 549-557

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2017.10.015

关键词

Zika; Twitter; risk communication; social media; influence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: This paper goes beyond detecting specific themes within Zika-related chatter on Twitter, to identify the key actors who influence the diffusive process through which some themes become more amplified than others. Methods: We collected all Zika-related tweets during the 3 months immediately after the first U.S. case of Zika. After the tweets were categorized into 12 themes, a cross-section were grouped into weekly datasets. to capture 12 amplifier/user groups, and analyzed by 4 amplification modes: mentions, retweets, talkers. and Twitter-wide amplifiers. Results: We analyzed 3.057,130 tweets in the United States and categorized 4997 users. The most talked about theme was Zika transmission (similar to 58%). News media, public health institutions, and grassroots users were the most visible and frequent sources and disseminators of Zika-related Twitter content. Grassroots users were the primary sources and disseminators of conspiracy theories. Conclusions: Social media analytics enable public health institutions to quickly learn what information is being disseminated, and by whom, regarding infectious diseases. Such information can help public health institutions identify and engage with news media and other active information providers. It also provides insights into media and public concerns, accuracy of information on Twitter, and information gaps. The study identifies implications for pandemic preparedness and response in the digital era and presents the agenda for future research and practice. (C) 2018 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据