Content Analysis of Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis-related Information on Twitter

Abstract

Background Information regarding idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) on the internet is often outdated, inaccurate, and potentially harmful. Twitter is a social media platform that allows users to post content in the form of “tweets”. Objective We sought to assess the prevalence of inaccurate information regarding IPF on Twitter. We hypothesized that foundations and medical organizations would be the least likely to post inaccurate information and that inaccurate tweets would have higher user engagement. Methods All tweets posted between 2011 and 2019 were gathered using “snscrape” on Python 3.8 while searching for the phrase “idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis”. Quantitative analysis was performed to describe trends in IPF-related tweet frequency over time. A subset of tweets made between 2018 and 2019 was screened for verifiable medical statements, which were then analyzed for accuracy compared with contemporary clinical practice guidelines, with descriptive statistics reported. Logistic regression was used to compare tweet accuracy and recommendation of nonindicated therapies across sources, with adjustment for tweet age and character count. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to determine if user engagement (favorites, retweets, and replies) differed between accurate and inaccurate tweets. Results A total of 16,787 tweets were identified between 2011 and 2019. Between 2018 and 2019, 4,861 tweets were included, of which 1,612 (33%) contained verifiable medical statements. Tweets from sources other than foundations or medical organizations were more likely to contain inaccurate information and to recommend nonindicated therapies in both unadjusted and adjusted analyses. News and media sources had the highest odds of communicating potentially harmful information in both adjusted (odds ratio [OR], 12.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.87–27.16) and unadjusted (OR, 11.62; 95% CI, 5.70–26.21) analyses when compared with foundations and medical organizations. Tweets containing inaccurate information had significantly lower numbers of favorites and retweets ( P < 0.001 for both). Conclusion Misinformation regarding IPF is present on Twitter and is more often presented by news and media sources. Medically inaccurate tweets displayed less user engagement than accurate tweets. This differs from findings on IPF-related information on YouTube and Facebook, which may reflect differences in both author and consumer qualities across social media platforms.

Current Landscape and Future Directions of Patient Education in Adults with Interstitial Lung Disease

“…Facebook posts featuring helpful and evidence-based advice do not necessarily generate the most attention through post sharing, which may permit outdated and false information to persist ( 40 ). This finding is in contrast to the Twitter/X content analysis, where there was less post attention to inaccurate information ( 46 ). The differences in post accuracy and attention could be due to the types of information being shared, because Twitter/X features more medical foundations and professionals sharing scientific findings and Facebook is centered on community interactions ( 46 ).…”

“…This finding is in contrast to the Twitter/X content analysis, where there was less post attention to inaccurate information ( 46 ). The differences in post accuracy and attention could be due to the types of information being shared, because Twitter/X features more medical foundations and professionals sharing scientific findings and Facebook is centered on community interactions ( 46 ). Although Facebook and Twitter/X posts have similar numbers of harmful information (5% vs. 7%), YouTube outnumbered both platforms (17%), possibly resulting from regulatory policy differences between platforms ( 46 ).…”

“…Although there are positive aspects to using social media for education, the presentation of false and harmful information alongside accurate and beneficial materials makes it difficult for patients to determine what information to trust ( 40 ). This ambiguity can be particularly harmful if the information contradicts the advice given by a physician ( 46 ).…”

“…In a content analysis of Facebook pages and Twitter/X posts dedicated IPF, many posts originated from nonmedical professionals, increasing the likelihood of finding inaccurate information ( 40 , 46 ). Facebook posts featuring helpful and evidence-based advice do not necessarily generate the most attention through post sharing, which may permit outdated and false information to persist ( 40 ).…”

“…The differences in post accuracy and attention could be due to the types of information being shared, because Twitter/X features more medical foundations and professionals sharing scientific findings and Facebook is centered on community interactions ( 46 ). Although Facebook and Twitter/X posts have similar numbers of harmful information (5% vs. 7%), YouTube outnumbered both platforms (17%), possibly resulting from regulatory policy differences between platforms ( 46 ). One necessary improvement to prevent misinformation includes consistent updates to and regulation of online resources in accordance with current research ( 19 , 47 ).…”