ArticleJMIR infodemiology2025
Exploring Topics, Emotions, and Sentiments in Health Organization Posts and Public Responses on Instagram: Content Analysis.
Article in JMIR infodemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSocial media is a vital tool for health organizations, enabling them to share evidence-based information, educate the public, correct misinformation, and support a more informed and healthier society.
objectiveThis study aimed to categorize health organizations' content on social media into topics; examine public engagement, sentiment, and emotional responses to these topics; and identify gaps in fear between health organizations' messages and the public response.
methodsReal data were collected from the official Instagram accounts of health organizations worldwide. The BERTopic algorithm for topic modeling was used to categorize health organizations' posts into distinct topics. For each identified topic, we analyzed the engagement metrics (number of comments and likes) of posts categorized under the same topic, calculating the average engagement received. We examined the sentiment and emotional content of both posts and responses within the same topic, providing insights into the distributions of sentiment and emotions for each topic. Special attention was given to identifying emotions, such as fear, expressed in the posts and responses. In addition, a linguistic analysis and an analysis of sentiments and emotions over time were conducted.
resultsA total of 6082 posts and 82,982 comments were collected from the official Instagram accounts of 8 health organizations. The study revealed that topics related to COVID-19, vaccines, and humanitarian crises (such as the Ukraine conflict and the war in Gaza) generated the highest engagement. Our sentiment analysis of the responses to health organizations' posts showed that topics related to vaccines and monkeypox generated the highest percentage of negative responses. Fear was the dominant emotion expressed in the posts' text, while the public's responses showed more varied emotions, with anger notably high in discussions around vaccines. Gaps were observed between the level of fear conveyed in posts published by health organizations and in the fear conveyed in the public's responses to such posts, especially regarding mask wearing during COVID-19 and the influenza vaccine.
conclusionsThis study underscores the importance of transparent communication that considers the emotional and sentiment-driven responses of the public on social media, particularly regarding vaccines. Understanding the psychological and social dynamics associated with public interaction with health information online can help health organizations achieve public health goals, fostering trust, countering misinformation, and promoting informed health behavior.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.