JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

The use of social media (SoMe) during crisis and disaster situations (CaD) has gained increasing attention across disciplines. However, existing research is highly fragmented and often focused on technical aspects, with limited understan¬ding of how and which psychosocial information is derived from SoMe in CaD.

Objective:

This scoping review aims to provide an overview of the current research landscape regarding the extraction of psychosocial insights from SoMe data during CaD. It identifies key themes, methodological approaches, and research gaps, with a particular focus on relevance for the German context.

Methods:

Following the JBI methodology for scoping reviews, a structured database search was conducted to include peer-reviewed studies published up to mid-2024. A method of triangulation combining qualitative and quantitative approaches was applied. The studies were analysed regarding the type of CaD, geographical focus, classification systems, methods of analysis used, and inclusion of psychosocial dimensions.

Results:

Of the included studies, 77% focused on natural disasters, with meteorological CaD representing 26% of events. This contrasts with prior reviews (e.g., [1]), where only 35% of CaD were natural, and anthropogenic events were more prevalent. Despite Asia, the Americas, and Africa experiencing the highest frequency of natural disasters globally [2], African CaD were significantly underrepresented in the literature. Only one included study focused on Africa, and among the ten deadliest natural disasters in recent years, only the 2010 Haiti earthquake was addressed. Merely 9% of studies integrated public health concerns, a slight improvement compared to 2% reported by [3]. In the German context, only four studies were found, none of which covered storms, floods, or extreme temperatures—despite these making up the majority of disasters in Germany according to EM-DAT data. While various technical methods for sentiment, emotion, and needs detection exist, few are based on theoretical models or include end-user perspectives. No study conducted real-time analysis; instead, all were retrospective. Additionally, current research focuses primarily on deficits (e.g., psychological needs or stress), often neglecting potential resources of SoMe use (e.g., community resilience and collective coping).

Conclusions:

Although the field is evolving, there remain major gaps in real-time application, end-user integration, and contextual adaptation—particularly for under-represented regions like Africa, but also in countries like Germany. Future research should emphasize user-centered design, theoretical grounding, and practical utility. Including both risk and resilience factors will improve the value of SoMe analysis in crisis and disaster management. Clinical Trial: N/A