Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Accepted for/Published in: Journal of Medical Internet Research

Date Submitted: May 1, 2019
Date Accepted: Aug 14, 2019

The final, peer-reviewed published version of this preprint can be found here:

Associations Between Characteristics of Web-Based Diabetes News and Readers’ Sentiments: Observational Study in the Netherlands

Vehof H, Heerdink E, Sanders J, Das E

Associations Between Characteristics of Web-Based Diabetes News and Readers’ Sentiments: Observational Study in the Netherlands

J Med Internet Res 2019;21(11):e14554

DOI: 10.2196/14554

PMID: 31719025

PMCID: 6881782

Associations between characteristics of online diabetes news and readers’ sentiment: An observational study in the Netherlands

  • Hans Vehof; 
  • Eibert Heerdink; 
  • José Sanders; 
  • Enny Das

ABSTRACT

Background:

Although experts agree that online health information often contains exaggeration and misrepresentation of science, it is unclear how the readers’ sentiment is associated with message characteristics.

Objective:

To investigate whether characteristics of online diabetes research news are associated with positive and negative sentiments of readers.

Methods:

A retrospective observational study of comments on diabetes research news posted on Facebook Pages, as a function of the innovations’ developmental phase, the intended treatment effect, and the use of strong language to intensify news messages (superlatives). Diabetes research news was investigated, posted between January 2014 and January 2018 on the two largest Dutch diabetes Facebook pages, as well as the provoked comments by readers of those Facebook pages. By manually coding Facebook user comments, three binary outcome variables were created, reflecting the presence of a positive sentiment, a negative sentiment, and the reader stating he or she is hopeful.

Results:

Facebook users made a total of 3710 comments in 173 diabetes research news posts that were eligible for further analyses. As compared to stronger evidence from large human trials, innovations supported by preclinical evidence in animals more frequently provoke both positive sentiments (OR 1.46, 1.07 to 1.99), and statements that the reader is hopeful (OR 1.47, 1.01 to 2.14). Furthermore, news about innovations that may cure diabetes lead to more positive sentiments as compared to symptom relieve (OR 0.31, 0.21 to 0.44), improved blood glucose regulation (OR 0.68, 0.56 to 0.84) and new approaches to prevent diabetes (OR 0.55, 0.37 to 0.84). This study found no evidence for associations between readers’ sentiments and language intensification of the news posts.

Conclusions:

Our finding that sentiments towards diabetes research news on Facebook are most positive when clinical efficacy is not (yet) proven in large patient trials, suggests that news authors and editors, as well as medical professionals, must exercise caution when acting as a conduit for diabetes research news. Clinical Trial: not applicable


 Citation

Please cite as:

Vehof H, Heerdink E, Sanders J, Das E

Associations Between Characteristics of Web-Based Diabetes News and Readers’ Sentiments: Observational Study in the Netherlands

J Med Internet Res 2019;21(11):e14554

DOI: 10.2196/14554

PMID: 31719025

PMCID: 6881782

Download PDF


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.