The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Dissemination of health information through social networks: Twitter and antibiotics
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: This study reviewed Twitter status updates mentioning "antibiotic(s)" to determine overarching categories and explore evidence of misunderstanding or misuse of antibiotics. METHODS: One thousand Twitter status updates mentioning antibiotic(s) were randomly selected for content analysis and categorization. To explore cases of potential misunderstanding or misuse, these status updates were mined for co-occurrence of the following terms: "cold + antibiotic(s)," "extra + antibiotic(s)," "flu + antibiotic(s)," "leftover + antibiotic(s)," and "share + antibiotic(s)" and reviewed to confirm evidence of misuse or misunderstanding. RESULTS: Of the 1000 status updates, 971 were categorized into 11 groups: general use (n = 289), advice/information (n = 157), side effects/negative reactions (n = 113), diagnosis (n = 102), resistance (n = 92), misunderstanding and/or misuse (n = 55), positive reactions (n = 48), animals (n = 46), other (n = 42), wanting/needing (n = 19), and cost (n = 8). Cases of misunderstanding or abuse were identified for the following combinations: "flu + antibiotic(s)" (n = 345), "cold + antibiotic(s)" (n = 302), "leftover + antibiotic(s)" (n = 23), "share + antibiotic(s)" (n = 10), and "extra + antibiotic(s)" (n = 7). CONCLUSION: Social media sites offer means of health information sharing. Further study is warranted to explore how such networks may provide a venue to identify misuse or misunderstanding of antibiotics, promote positive behavior change, disseminate valid information, and explore how such tools can be used to gather real-time health data.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Eysenbach, G. (2009) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.1157 · Cited by 1,351
Behavior change interventions delivered by mobile telephone short message service
Fjeldsoe, B. S., Marshall, A. L., & Miller, Y. D. (2009) · American Journal of Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2008.09.040 · Cited by 1,213 · cited 1×
“One recent paper reviewed 14 studies and reported positive behavior change outcomes in 13 of them [26].”
BackgroundRodgers, A., Corbett, T., Bramley, D., Riddell, T., Wills, M., Lin, R.-B., & Jones, M. (2005) · Tobacco Control · doi:10.1136/tc.2005.011577 · Cited by 732
Content of Weblogs Written by Health Professionals
Lagu, T., Kaufman, E. J., Asch, D. A., & Armstrong, K. (2008) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-008-0726-6 · Cited by 255
Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0: Tensions and Controversies in the Field
Hughes, B., Joshi, I., & Wareham, J. (2008) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.1056 · Cited by 221
Cited by
Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100612451018 · Cited by 2,920
Moorhead, S. A., Hazlett, D. E., Harrison, L., Carroll, J. K., Irwin, A., & Hoving, C. (2013) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.1933 · Cited by 2,517
Systematic Literature Review on the Spread of Health-related Misinformation on Social Media
Wang, Y., McKee, M., Torbica, A., & Stuckler, D. (2019) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112552 · Cited by 1,806
“This is perhaps surprising, as health promotion and public health researchers now pay considerable attention to the potential of the internet as a tool to diffuse health-related information (Chew and Eysenbach, 2010; Ritterband and Tate, 2009; Murray et al., 2009; Scanfeld et al., 2010; Signorini et al., 2011) , emplo…”
Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19): Emotional Toll Analysis on Twitter
Alowibdi, J. S., Alshdadi, A. A., Daud, A., Dessouky, M. M., & Alhazmi, E. A. (2021) · International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems · doi:10.4018/ijswis.2021040101 · Cited by 1,530
Seeking Support on Facebook: A Content Analysis of Breast Cancer Groups
Bender, J. L., Jimenez-Marroquin, M.-C., & Jadad, A. R. (2011) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.1560 · Cited by 438
Metadata
- Authors
- Scanfeld, D., Scanfeld, V., & Larson, E. L.
- Venue
- American Journal of Infection Control
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-04
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 182-188
- ISSN
- 0196-6553 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2059944506
- Cited by
- 702
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 44.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Dissemination of health information through social networks: Twitter and antibiotics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ajic.2009.11.004
- The paper
- Scanfeld, D., Scanfeld, V., & Larson, E. L. (2010). Dissemination of health information through social networks: Twitter and antibiotics. American Journal of Infection Control. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2009.11.004
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
