“我该说什么?”我该怎么说?”推特作为心理健康研究的知识传播工具。

IF 4.3 3区 材料科学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC ACS Applied Electronic Materials Pub Date : 2024-01-02 Epub Date: 2024-01-09 DOI:10.1080/10810730.2023.2278617
Erin Madden, Katrina Prior, Tara Guckel, Sophia Garlick Bock, Zachary Bryant, Siobhan O'Dean, Smriti Nepal, Caitlin Ward, Louise Thornton
{"title":"“我该说什么?”我该怎么说?”推特作为心理健康研究的知识传播工具。","authors":"Erin Madden, Katrina Prior, Tara Guckel, Sophia Garlick Bock, Zachary Bryant, Siobhan O'Dean, Smriti Nepal, Caitlin Ward, Louise Thornton","doi":"10.1080/10810730.2023.2278617","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aims to generate evidence-based guidelines for researchers regarding how to effectively disseminate mental health research via Twitter. Three hundred mental health research Tweets posted from September 2018 to September 2019 were sampled from two large Australian organizations. Twenty-seven predictor variables were coded for each Tweet across five thematic categories: messaging; research area; mental health area; external networks; and media features. Regression analyses were conducted to determine associations with engagement outcomes of Favourites, Retweets, and Comments. Less than half (<i>n</i> = 10) of predictor variables passed validity tests. Notably, conclusions could not reliably be drawn on whether a Tweet featured evidence-based information. Tweets were significantly more likely to be Retweeted if they contained a hyperlink or multimedia. Tweets were significantly more likely to receive comments if they focused on a specific population group. These associations remain significant when controlling for organization. These findings indicate that researchers may be able to maximize engagement on Twitter by highlighting the population groups that the research applies to and enriching Tweets with multimedia content. In addition, care should be taken to ensure users can infer which messages are evidence-based. Guidelines and an accompanying resource are proposed.</p>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"\\\"What Do I Say? How Do I Say it?\\\" Twitter as a Knowledge Dissemination Tool for Mental Health Research.\",\"authors\":\"Erin Madden, Katrina Prior, Tara Guckel, Sophia Garlick Bock, Zachary Bryant, Siobhan O'Dean, Smriti Nepal, Caitlin Ward, Louise Thornton\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10810730.2023.2278617\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study aims to generate evidence-based guidelines for researchers regarding how to effectively disseminate mental health research via Twitter. Three hundred mental health research Tweets posted from September 2018 to September 2019 were sampled from two large Australian organizations. Twenty-seven predictor variables were coded for each Tweet across five thematic categories: messaging; research area; mental health area; external networks; and media features. Regression analyses were conducted to determine associations with engagement outcomes of Favourites, Retweets, and Comments. Less than half (<i>n</i> = 10) of predictor variables passed validity tests. Notably, conclusions could not reliably be drawn on whether a Tweet featured evidence-based information. Tweets were significantly more likely to be Retweeted if they contained a hyperlink or multimedia. Tweets were significantly more likely to receive comments if they focused on a specific population group. These associations remain significant when controlling for organization. These findings indicate that researchers may be able to maximize engagement on Twitter by highlighting the population groups that the research applies to and enriching Tweets with multimedia content. In addition, care should be taken to ensure users can infer which messages are evidence-based. Guidelines and an accompanying resource are proposed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":3,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2023.2278617\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"材料科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2023.2278617","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究旨在为研究人员提供关于如何通过Twitter有效传播心理健康研究的循证指南。从2018年9月至2019年9月发布的300条心理健康研究推文从澳大利亚的两个大型组织中抽取样本。每条推文的27个预测变量被编码为五个主题类别:消息;研究领域;心理健康领域;外部网络;以及媒体功能。进行回归分析以确定收藏、转发和评论与参与结果的关联。不到一半(n = 10)的预测变量通过了效度测试。值得注意的是,不能可靠地得出一条推文是否包含循证信息的结论。包含超链接或多媒体的推文更有可能被转发。如果推文专注于特定人群,则更有可能收到评论。在控制组织时,这些关联仍然很重要。这些发现表明,研究人员可以通过突出研究适用的人群和用多媒体内容丰富Twitter来最大限度地提高Twitter的参与度。此外,还应注意确保用户能够推断出哪些消息是基于证据的。提出了准则和随附的资源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
"What Do I Say? How Do I Say it?" Twitter as a Knowledge Dissemination Tool for Mental Health Research.

This study aims to generate evidence-based guidelines for researchers regarding how to effectively disseminate mental health research via Twitter. Three hundred mental health research Tweets posted from September 2018 to September 2019 were sampled from two large Australian organizations. Twenty-seven predictor variables were coded for each Tweet across five thematic categories: messaging; research area; mental health area; external networks; and media features. Regression analyses were conducted to determine associations with engagement outcomes of Favourites, Retweets, and Comments. Less than half (n = 10) of predictor variables passed validity tests. Notably, conclusions could not reliably be drawn on whether a Tweet featured evidence-based information. Tweets were significantly more likely to be Retweeted if they contained a hyperlink or multimedia. Tweets were significantly more likely to receive comments if they focused on a specific population group. These associations remain significant when controlling for organization. These findings indicate that researchers may be able to maximize engagement on Twitter by highlighting the population groups that the research applies to and enriching Tweets with multimedia content. In addition, care should be taken to ensure users can infer which messages are evidence-based. Guidelines and an accompanying resource are proposed.

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
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
567
期刊最新文献
Current status and obstacles of narrowing yield gaps of four major crops. Cold shock treatment alleviates pitting in sweet cherry fruit by enhancing antioxidant enzymes activity and regulating membrane lipid metabolism. Removal of proteins and lipids affects structure, in vitro digestion and physicochemical properties of rice flour modified by heat-moisture treatment. Investigating the impact of climate variables on the organic honey yield in Turkey using XGBoost machine learning. Evaluation of the potential of achachairu peel (Garcinia humilis) for the fortification of cereal-based foods.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1