Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
1.
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz ; 66(6): 689-699, 2023 Jun.
Article in German | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2322843

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: At the beginning of the COVID­19 pandemic in Germany, there was great uncertainty among the population and among those responsible for crisis communication. A substantial part of the communication from experts and the responsible authorities took place on social media, especially on Twitter. The positive, negative, and neutral sentiments (emotions) conveyed there during crisis communication have not yet been comparatively studied for Germany. STUDY AIM: Sentiments in Twitter messages from various (health) authorities and independent experts on COVID­19 will be evaluated for the first pandemic year (1 January 2020 to 15 January 2021) to provide a knowledge base for improving future crisis communication. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From n = 39 Twitter actors (21 authorities and 18 experts), n = 8251 tweets were included in the analysis. The sentiment analysis was done using the so-called lexicon approach, a method within the social media analytics framework to detect sentiments. Descriptive statistics were calculated to determine, among other things, the average polarity of sentiments and the frequencies of positive and negative words in the three phases of the pandemic. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The development of emotionality in COVID­19 tweets and the number of new infections in Germany run roughly parallel. The analysis shows that the polarity of sentiments is negative on average for both groups of actors. Experts tweet significantly more negatively about COVID­19 than authorities during the study period. Authorities communicate close to the neutrality line in the second phase, that is, neither distinctly positive nor negative.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Social Media , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , Sentiment Analysis , Germany , Communication , Attitude
2.
JMIR Public Health Surveill ; 7(12): e31834, 2021 12 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1592949

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic led to the necessity of immediate crisis communication by public health authorities. In Germany, as in many other countries, people choose social media, including Twitter, to obtain real-time information and understanding of the pandemic and its consequences. Next to authorities, experts such as virologists and science communicators were very prominent at the beginning of German Twitter COVID-19 crisis communication. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to detect similarities and differences between public authorities and individual experts in COVID-19 crisis communication on Twitter during the first year of the pandemic. METHODS: Descriptive analysis and quantitative content analysis were carried out on 8251 original tweets posted from January 1, 2020, to January 15, 2021. COVID-19-related tweets of 21 authorities and 18 experts were categorized into structural, content, and style components. Negative binomial regressions were performed to evaluate tweet spread measured by the retweet and like counts of COVID-19-related tweets. RESULTS: Descriptive statistics revealed that authorities and experts increasingly tweeted about COVID-19 over the period under study. Two experts and one authority were responsible for 70.26% (544,418/774,865) of all retweets, thus representing COVID-19 influencers. Altogether, COVID-19 tweets by experts reached a 7-fold higher rate of retweeting (t8,249=26.94, P<.001) and 13.9 times the like rate (t8,249=31.27, P<.001) compared with those of authorities. Tweets by authorities were much more designed than those by experts, with more structural and content components; for example, 91.99% (4997/5432) of tweets by authorities used hashtags in contrast to only 19.01% (536/2819) of experts' COVID-19 tweets. Multivariate analysis revealed that such structural elements reduce the spread of the tweets, and the incidence rate of retweets for authorities' tweets using hashtags was approximately 0.64 that of tweets without hashtags (Z=-6.92, P<.001). For experts, the effect of hashtags on retweets was insignificant (Z=1.56, P=.12). CONCLUSIONS: Twitter data are a powerful information source and suitable for crisis communication in Germany. COVID-19 tweet activity mirrors the development of COVID-19 cases in Germany. Twitter users retweet and like communications regarding COVID-19 by experts more than those delivered by authorities. Tweets have higher coverage for both authorities and experts when they are plain and for authorities when they directly address people. For authorities, it appears that it was difficult to win recognition during COVID-19. For all stakeholders studied, the association between number of followers and number of retweets was highly significantly positive (authorities Z=28.74, P<.001; experts Z=25.99, P<.001). Updated standards might be required for successful crisis communication by authorities.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Social Media , Communication , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL