Public Health Messaging on Twitter During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Observational Study.

Abstract

Background: Effective communication is crucial during health crises, and social media has become a prominent platform for public health experts (PHEs) to share information and engage with the public. At the same time, social media also provides a platform for pseudoexperts who may spread contrarian views. Despite the importance of social media, key elements of communication, such as the use of moral or emotional language and messaging strategy, particularly during the emergency phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, have not been explored.

Objective: This study aimed to analyze how PHEs and pseudoexperts communicated with the public during the emergency phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. We focused on the emotional and moral language used in their messages on various COVID-19 pandemic-related topics. We also analyzed their interactions with political elites and the public's engagement with PHEs to gain a deeper understanding of their influence on public discourse.

Methods: For this observational study, we gathered a dataset of >539,000 original posts or reposts from 489 PHEs and 356 pseudoexperts on Twitter (subsequently rebranded X) from January 2020 to January 2021, along with the replies to the original posts from the PHEs. We identified the key issues that PHEs and pseudoexperts prioritized. We also determined the emotional and moral language in both the original posts and the replies. This allows us to characterize priorities for PHEs and pseudoexperts as well as differences in messaging strategy between these 2 groups. We also evaluated the influence of PHEs' language and strategy on the public response.

Results: Our analyses revealed that PHEs focused more on masking, health care, education, and vaccines, whereas pseudoexperts discussed therapeutics and lockdowns more frequently (P<.001). PHEs typically used positive emotional language across all issues (P<.001), expressing optimism and joy. Pseudoexperts often used negative emotions of pessimism and disgust, while limiting positive emotional language to origins and therapeutics (P<.001). Along the dimensions of moral language, PHEs and pseudoexperts differed on care versus harm and authority versus subversion across different issues. Negative emotional and moral language tends to boost engagement in COVID-19 discussions across all issues. However, the use of positive language by PHEs increases the use of positive language in the public responses. PHEs act as liberal partisans: they express more positive affect in their posts directed at liberals and more negative affect in their posts directed at conservative elites. In contrast, pseudoexperts act as conservative partisans. These results provide nuanced insights into the elements that have polarized the COVID-19 discourse.

Conclusions: Understanding the nature of the public response to PHEs' messages on social media is essential for refining communication strategies during health crises. Our findings underscore the importance of using moral-emotional language strategically to reduce polarization and build trust.