Investigation of Carers’ Perspectives of Dementia Misconceptions on Twitter: Focus Group Study

Abstract

Background Dementia misconceptions on social media are common, with negative effects on people with the condition, their carers, and those who know them. This study codeveloped a thematic framework with carers to understand the forms these misconceptions take on Twitter. Objective The aim of this study is to identify and analyze types of dementia conversations on Twitter using participatory methods. Methods A total of 3 focus groups with dementia carers were held to develop a framework of dementia misconceptions based on their experiences. Dementia-related tweets were collected from Twitter’s official application programming interface using neutral and negative search terms defined by the literature and by carers (N=48,211). A sample of these tweets was selected with equal numbers of neutral and negative words (n=1497), which was validated in individual ratings by carers. We then used the framework to analyze, in detail, a sample of carer-rated negative tweets (n=863). Results A total of 25.94% (12,507/48,211) of our tweet corpus contained negative search terms about dementia. The carers’ framework had 3 negative and 3 neutral categories. Our thematic analysis of carer-rated negative tweets found 9 themes, including the use of weaponizing language to insult politicians (469/863, 54.3%), using dehumanizing or outdated words or statements about members of the public (n=143, 16.6%), unfounded claims about the cures or causes of dementia (n=11, 1.3%), or providing armchair diagnoses of dementia (n=21, 2.4%). Conclusions This is the first study to use participatory methods to develop a framework that identifies dementia misconceptions on Twitter. We show that misconceptions and stigmatizing language are not rare. They manifest through minimizing and underestimating language. Web-based campaigns aiming to reduce discrimination and stigma about dementia could target those who use negative vocabulary and reduce the misconceptions that are being propagated, thus improving general awareness.

The impact of patient involvement on participant opinions of information sheets

“…Our participant group was ethnically diverse (21/35; 60% from a minority ethnic group). Diversity in PPI is a neglected area, 23 and we have gained the opinions of a wider group of participants than is common in PPI research, 6,14 improving the generalisability of our findings. However, as this study employed a relatively small sample size, further research is required.…”

“…Interview transcripts were analysed thematically using the Braun and Clarke 13 method also used in previous publications. 3 , 14 Themes were inductively and independently extracted by two researchers, using the five-stage analysis framework of Pope et al: 15 familiarisation with the raw data; identifying a thematic framework; applying the thematic framework; charting the data according to the thematic framework; and mapping and interpretation by defining concepts, mapping the range and nature of phenomena, and creating typologies. To minimise bias and maximise our inductive approach from an emic perspective, 16 two patient researchers independently undertook inductive coding 17 to categorise the codes into themes and subthemes.…”

Comparing Professional and Consumer Ratings of Mental Health Apps: Mixed Methods Study

“…All open-ended survey responses were thematically analyzed using the Braun and Clarke [ 32 ] method, which was also used in previous publications [ 33 , 34 ]. Themes were inductively extracted by 2 researchers (GH and EN) independently, using the analysis framework by Pope et al [ 35 ].…”

Investigating mental health service user views of stigma on Twitter during COVID-19: a mixed-methods study

“…We carried out an inter-rater reliability analysis to understand how service users’ views of stigma differ and found fair/moderate agreement. This highlights the difficulty in capturing service user views of mental health stigma and the heterogeneity in mental health conditions, combined with societal and cultural factors which shape how individuals communicate and understand their mental health (Hudson et al, 2022 ; Taylor & Brown, 1988 ).…”