Content quality versus sharing practices on social media: a cross-sectional analysis of nutrition information on Twitter
Abstract Objective: To use the validated Online Quality Assessment Tool (OQAT) to assess the quality of online nutrition information. Setting: The social networking platform was formerly known as Twitter (now X). Design: Utilising the Twitter search application programming interface (API; v1·1...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Cambridge University Press
2025-01-01
|
| Series: | Public Health Nutrition |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1368980025000461/type/journal_article |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850136532750434304 |
|---|---|
| author | Cassandra H Ellis Peter Ho J Bernadette Moore Charlotte EL Evans |
| author_facet | Cassandra H Ellis Peter Ho J Bernadette Moore Charlotte EL Evans |
| author_sort | Cassandra H Ellis |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description |
Abstract
Objective:
To use the validated Online Quality Assessment Tool (OQAT) to assess the quality of online nutrition information.
Setting:
The social networking platform was formerly known as Twitter (now X).
Design:
Utilising the Twitter search application programming interface (API; v1·1), all tweets that included the word ‘nutrition’, along with associated metadata, were collected on seven randomly selected days in 2021. Tweets were screened, those without a URL were removed and the remainder were grouped on retweet status. Articles (shared via URL) were assessed using the OQAT, and quality levels were assigned (low, satisfactory, high). Mean differences between retweeted and non-retweeted data were assessed by the Mann–Whitney U test. The Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel test was used to compare information quality by source.
Results:
In total, 10 573 URL were collected from 18 230 tweets. After screening for relevance, 1005 articles were assessed (9568 were out of scope) sourced from professional blogs (n 354), news outlets (n 213), companies (n 166), personal blogs (n 120), NGO (n 60), magazines (n 55), universities (n 19) and government (n 18). Rasch measures indicated the quality levels: 0–3·48, poor, 3·49–6·3, satisfactory and 6·4–10, high quality. Personal and company-authored blogs were more likely to rank as poor quality. There was a significant difference in the quality of retweeted (n 267, sum of rank, 461·6) and non-retweeted articles (n 738, sum of rank, 518·0), U = 87 475, P= 0·006 but no significant effect of information source on quality.
Conclusions:
Lower-quality nutrition articles were more likely to be retweeted. Caution is required when using or sharing articles, particularly from companies and personal blogs, which tend to be lower-quality sources of nutritional information.
|
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-0a6ff43ec0be4c67956c19caf88a4de4 |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 1368-9800 1475-2727 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-01-01 |
| publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Public Health Nutrition |
| spelling | doaj-art-0a6ff43ec0be4c67956c19caf88a4de42025-08-20T02:31:05ZengCambridge University PressPublic Health Nutrition1368-98001475-27272025-01-012810.1017/S1368980025000461Content quality versus sharing practices on social media: a cross-sectional analysis of nutrition information on TwitterCassandra H Ellis0https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1060-3019Peter Ho1J Bernadette Moore2Charlotte EL Evans3School of Food Science and Nutrition, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK The Nutrition Society, 10 Cambridge Court, 210 Shepherds Bush Road, London W6 7NJ, UKSchool of Food Science and Nutrition, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UKSchool of Food Science and Nutrition, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UKSchool of Food Science and Nutrition, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK Abstract Objective: To use the validated Online Quality Assessment Tool (OQAT) to assess the quality of online nutrition information. Setting: The social networking platform was formerly known as Twitter (now X). Design: Utilising the Twitter search application programming interface (API; v1·1), all tweets that included the word ‘nutrition’, along with associated metadata, were collected on seven randomly selected days in 2021. Tweets were screened, those without a URL were removed and the remainder were grouped on retweet status. Articles (shared via URL) were assessed using the OQAT, and quality levels were assigned (low, satisfactory, high). Mean differences between retweeted and non-retweeted data were assessed by the Mann–Whitney U test. The Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel test was used to compare information quality by source. Results: In total, 10 573 URL were collected from 18 230 tweets. After screening for relevance, 1005 articles were assessed (9568 were out of scope) sourced from professional blogs (n 354), news outlets (n 213), companies (n 166), personal blogs (n 120), NGO (n 60), magazines (n 55), universities (n 19) and government (n 18). Rasch measures indicated the quality levels: 0–3·48, poor, 3·49–6·3, satisfactory and 6·4–10, high quality. Personal and company-authored blogs were more likely to rank as poor quality. There was a significant difference in the quality of retweeted (n 267, sum of rank, 461·6) and non-retweeted articles (n 738, sum of rank, 518·0), U = 87 475, P= 0·006 but no significant effect of information source on quality. Conclusions: Lower-quality nutrition articles were more likely to be retweeted. Caution is required when using or sharing articles, particularly from companies and personal blogs, which tend to be lower-quality sources of nutritional information. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1368980025000461/type/journal_articleNutrition communicationQuality assessmentDigital healthOnline informationSocial mediaTwitterX |
| spellingShingle | Cassandra H Ellis Peter Ho J Bernadette Moore Charlotte EL Evans Content quality versus sharing practices on social media: a cross-sectional analysis of nutrition information on Twitter Public Health Nutrition Nutrition communication Quality assessment Digital health Online information Social media X |
| title | Content quality versus sharing practices on social media: a cross-sectional analysis of nutrition information on Twitter |
| title_full | Content quality versus sharing practices on social media: a cross-sectional analysis of nutrition information on Twitter |
| title_fullStr | Content quality versus sharing practices on social media: a cross-sectional analysis of nutrition information on Twitter |
| title_full_unstemmed | Content quality versus sharing practices on social media: a cross-sectional analysis of nutrition information on Twitter |
| title_short | Content quality versus sharing practices on social media: a cross-sectional analysis of nutrition information on Twitter |
| title_sort | content quality versus sharing practices on social media a cross sectional analysis of nutrition information on twitter |
| topic | Nutrition communication Quality assessment Digital health Online information Social media X |
| url | https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1368980025000461/type/journal_article |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT cassandrahellis contentqualityversussharingpracticesonsocialmediaacrosssectionalanalysisofnutritioninformationontwitter AT peterho contentqualityversussharingpracticesonsocialmediaacrosssectionalanalysisofnutritioninformationontwitter AT jbernadettemoore contentqualityversussharingpracticesonsocialmediaacrosssectionalanalysisofnutritioninformationontwitter AT charlotteelevans contentqualityversussharingpracticesonsocialmediaacrosssectionalanalysisofnutritioninformationontwitter |