Examining the Public Messaging on 'Loneliness' over Social Media: An Unsupervised Machine Learning Analysis of Twitter Posts over the Past Decade.

Loneliness is an issue of public health significance. Longitudinal studies indicate that feelings of loneliness are prevalent and were exacerbated by the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. With the advent of new media, more people are turning to social media platforms such as Twitter and Reddit as well as online forums, e.g., loneliness forums, to seek advice and solace regarding their health and well-being. The present study therefore aimed to investigate the public messaging on loneliness via an unsupervised machine learning analysis of posts made by organisations on Twitter. We specifically examined tweets put out by organisations (companies, agencies or common interest groups) as the public may view them as more credible information as opposed to individual opinions. A total of 68,345 unique tweets in English were posted by organisations on Twitter from 1 January 2012 to 1 September 2022. These tweets were extracted and analysed using unsupervised machine learning approaches. BERTopic, a topic modelling technique that leverages state-of-the-art natural language processing, was applied to generate interpretable topics around the public messaging of loneliness and highlight the key words in the topic descriptions. The topics and topic labels were then reviewed independently by all study investigators for thematic analysis. Four key themes were uncovered, namely, the experience of loneliness, people who experience loneliness, what exacerbates loneliness and what could alleviate loneliness. Notably, a significant proportion of the tweets centred on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on loneliness. While current online interactions are largely descriptive of the complex and multifaceted problem of loneliness, more targeted prosocial messaging appears to be lacking to combat the causes of loneliness brought up in public messaging.

Public Health Directives in a Pandemic: Paradoxical Messages for Domestic Abuse Victims in Four Countries.

When the COVID-19 pandemic manifested urgent concerns were raised around the globe about the increased risk that public health restrictions could pose for victims of domestic abuse. Governments, NGOs and community services swiftly responded to convey the message that services for victims were operational and restrictions did not apply to those fleeing harm. This paper reports on the various approaches used to communicate this public health messaging during COVID-19, further highlighting strengths and learning which could inform future crises messaging. It utilises data gathered through a rapid review and mapping of policy and practice initiatives across 4 high-middle income countries: UK, Australia, South Africa and Ireland. Four themes were identified: (1) Top-down: National media messaging; (2) Top-down: Political leadership; (3) Traditional media vs. social media and (4) Bottom-up messaging: Localised, community-based messaging. It was found that a strong, clear top-down stance on domestic abuse was perceived as beneficial during COVID-19. However, a stronger focus on evaluation, reach and impact, particularly for minority groups may be required. Newer forms of media were shown to have potential in conveying messaging to minority groups. Community and grassroots organizations demonstrated their experiential knowledge in reaching target audiences. Harnessing this expertise for future crises messaging may be valuable.

Perceptions and knowledge regarding the COVID-19 pandemic between U.S. and China: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2, a new coronavirus first reported by China on December 31st, 2019, has led to a global health crisis that continues to challenge governments and public health organizations. Understanding COVID-19 knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) is key for informing messaging strategies to contain the pandemic. Cross-national studies (e.g.: comparing China to the U.S.) are needed to better understand how trans-cultural differences may drive differences in pandemic response and behaviors. The goal of the study is to compare knowledge and perceptions of COVID-19 between adults in China and the U.S. These data will provide insight into challenges these nations may face in coordinating pandemic response. METHODS: This is a convergent mixed methods study comparing responses from China and the U.S. to a multinational COVID-19 KAP online survey. The survey included five quantitative constructs and five open-ended questions. Chinese respondents (n = 56) were matched for gender, age, education, perceived social standing, and time of survey completion with a U.S. cohort (n = 57) drawn from 10,620 U.S. RESPONDENTS: Quantitative responses were compared using T-test & Fisher-Exact tests. Inductive thematic analysis was applied to open-ended questions. RESULTS: Both U.S. and Chinese samples had relatively high intention to follow preventive behaviors overall. Differences in intended compliance with a specific recommendation appear to be driven by the different cultural norms in U.S. and China. Both groups expressed trepidation about the speed of COVID-19 vaccine development, driven by concern for safety among Chinese respondents, and concern for efficacy among U.S. RESPONDENTS: The Chinese cohort expressed worries about other countries' passive handling of the pandemic while the U.S. cohort focused on domestic responses from individuals and government. U.S. participants appeared more knowledgeable on some aspects of COVID-19. Different perspectives regarding COVID-19 origins were identified among the two groups. Participants from both samples reported high trust in health professionals and international health organizations. CONCLUSIONS: Mixed methods data from this cross-national analysis suggests sociocultural differences likely influence perceptions and knowledge of COVID-19 and its related public health policies. Discovering and addressing these culturally-based differences and perceptions are essential to coordinate a global pandemic response.

COVID-19, Coronavirus, Wuhan Virus, or China Virus? Understanding How to "Do No Harm" When Naming an Infectious Disease.

When labeling an infectious disease, officially sanctioned scientific names, e.g., "H1N1 virus," are recommended over place-specific names, e.g., "Spanish flu." This is due to concerns from policymakers and the WHO that the latter might lead to unintended stigmatization. However, with little empirical support for such negative consequences, authorities might be focusing on limited resources on an overstated issue. This paper empirically investigates the impact of naming against the current backdrop of the 2019-2020 pandemic. The first hypothesis posited that using place-specific names associated with China (e.g., Wuhan Virus or China Virus) leads to greater levels of sinophobia, the negative stigmatization of Chinese individuals. The second hypothesis posited that using a scientific name (e.g., Coronavirus or COVID-19) leads to increased anxiety, risk aversion, beliefs about contagiousness of the virus, and beliefs about mortality rate. Results from two preregistered studies [N(Study 1) = 504; N(Study 2) = 412], conducted across three countries with the first study during the early outbreak (April 2020) and the second study at a later stage of the pandemic (August 2020), found no evidence of any adverse effects of naming on sinophobia and strong support for the null hypothesis using Bayesian analyses. Moreover, analyses found no impact of naming on anxiety, risk aversion, beliefs about contagiousness of the virus, or beliefs about mortality rate, with mild to strong support for the null hypothesis across outcomes. Exploratory analyses also found no evidence for the effect of naming being moderated by political affiliation. In conclusion, results provide no evidence that virus naming impacted individual's attitudes toward Chinese individuals or perceptions of the virus, with the majority of analyses finding strong support for the null hypothesis. Therefore, based on the current evidence, it appears that the importance given to naming infectious diseases might be inflated.