Methadone and Suboxone® mentions on Twitter: Thematic and Sentiment Analysis (Preprint)
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Methadone and buprenorphine-naloxone (Suboxone®) have been discussed and compared extensively in the medical literature as effective treatments for opioid use disorder (OUD). While the evidence basis for the use of these medications is very favorable, less is known about the perceptions of these medications within the general public. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to use social media, specifically Twitter, to assess the public perception of these medications, and to compare the discussion content between each medication based on theme, subtheme, and sentiment. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods descriptive study analyzing individual microposts (“tweets”) that mentioned “methadone” or “suboxone”. We then categorized these tweets into themes and subthemes, as well as by sentiment and personal experience, and compared the information posted about these two medications, including in tweets that mentioned both medications. RESULTS: We analyzed 900 tweets, most of which related to access (13.8% for methadone; 12.9% for suboxone®), stigma (15.3%; 14.0%), and OUD treatment (11.5%; 5.4%). Only a small proportion of tweets (16.4% for suboxone® and 9.3% for methadone) expressed positive sentiments about the medications, with few tweets describing personal experiences. Tweets mentioning both medications primarily discussed MOUD in general, rather than comparing the two medications directly. CONCLUSIONS: Twitter content about methadone and suboxone are similar, with the same major themes and similar sub-themes. Despite the proven effectiveness of these medications, there was little dialogue related to their benefits or efficacy in the treatment of opioid use disorder. Perceptions of these medications may contribute to their underutilization in combatting opioid use disorder.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Sentiment analysis has been shown to be an effective strategy for social web text analytics.
“This has been shown to be an effective strategy for social web text analytics [66] with large and variate applications [67,68].”
From Safety of creatine supplementation: analysis of the prevalence of reported side effects in clinical trials and adverse event reports (2025) · cites this paper as [67]
Cites
Using thematic analysis in psychology
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa · Cited by 194,414 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kreider, R. B., Gonzalez, D. E., Hines, K., Gil, A., & Bonilla, D. A. (2025) · Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition · doi:10.1080/15502783.2025.2488937 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
- Authors
- Chenworth, M., Perrone, J., Hogg, W., & Sarker, A.
- Publisher
- JMIR Publications Inc.
- Published
- 2020-04-28
- OpenAlex
- W4230374620
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
- Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
- Keywords
- methadone, buprenorphine/naloxone, opioid use disorder, medication-assisted treatment, public perception, social media, Twitter, stigma, access to treatment, sentiment analysis, undertreatment
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