Temporal and textual analysis of social media on collective discourses during the Zika virus pandemic

Abstract

Background: While existing studies have investigated the role of social media on health-related communication, little is known about the potential differences between different users groups on different social media platforms in responses to a health event. This study sets out to explore the online discourse of governmental authorities and the public in Singapore during the recent Zika pandemic in 2016. Methods: Social media data were extracted from Facebook and Twitter using retroactive keyword sourcing of the word "Zika" to search for posts and a location filter of "Singapore". Government posts, public posts, and replies to these original posts were included in the temporal and textual analysis. Results: Overall, Facebook contained more government and individual content whereas Twitter had more content from news media accounts. Though the relative volume of Zika content from different data sources paralleled the peaks and troughs of Zika activities across time, discourses from different data sources differed in their temporal patterns, such that the public discourse died down faster than the government discourse after the outbreak was declared. In addition, the content of discourses differed among data sources. While government discourse included factual information of the disease, public discourse contained more elements of care such as worry about the risks to pregnant women, and elements of community such as well-wishes to each other. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates the temporal and content differences between user groups and social media platforms in social media conversations during the Zika pandemic. It suggests that future research should examine the collective discourse of a health event by investigating social media discourses within varied sources rather than focusing on a singular social media platform and by one particular type of users.

Learning about COVID-19: a qualitative interview study of Australians’ use of information sources

“…News and social media can play an important role in providing information to publics in cases of new or emerging diseases. It is vital to reach people quickly and share details in a situation in which medical and public health authorities are grappling with how the disease spreads and can best be controlled [1][2][3][4][5]. Major infectious disease outbreaks are highly newsworthy, typically attracting dramatic statements concerning risk [6][7][8].…”

Facebook and mosquito-borne disease outbreaks: An analysis of public responses to federal health agencies’ posts about dengue and Zika in 2016

“…Leaders from public health agencies should create science-based messaging to improve public health education and risk communication [20]. Government agencies in Singapore were informative and engaged in their posts during the ZIKV outbreak, providing updates on ZIKV cases and on their vector control efforts [44]. In contrast with our findings, the study found that public response to government health information posts conveyed elements of care (e.g., highlighting the risks to pregnant women, and "elements of community such as wellwishes to other individuals").…”

“…Types of interactions may vary between different types of social media outlets. Another study found that Twitter was dominated by news media posts during the Zika outbreak, hence government health agencies may consider collaborating with news media outlets to provide information to the public [44].…”

Network Structure and Community Evolution Online: Behavioral and Emotional Changes in Response to COVID-19

“…Additionally, this understanding can provide fundamental insights into how collective social processes evolve, influence participants' emotions, and ultimately change behavior and disease outcomes. In recent years, online social media sites have been increasingly used as agents for understanding the impact of major societal disturbances, such as earthquakes ( 1 , 2 ), tsunamis ( 3 , 4 ), and pandemics ( 5 , 6 ).…”