What Twitter teaches us about patient-provider communication on pain


Autoři: Yasmin M. Kloth aff001;  Kenneth M. Deutsch aff002;  Katy A. Danielson aff003;  Julie Strack aff002;  Catherine Law aff003
Působiště autorů: Research Program, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, MD, United States of America aff001;  JPA Health Communications, Boston, MA, United States of America aff002;  National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, MD, United States of America aff003
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(12)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226321

Souhrn

The objective of this study was to understand how pain patients and health care providers (HCPs) are engaging on Twitter and what insights this engagement might provide. By identifying how information is spread by and between these audiences, organizations such as patient advocacy groups may be better poised to develop and share materials that facilitate online communication between HCPs and pain patients, with an end goal of improving a shared decision-making process around pain management. We analyzed the Twitter audiences most engaged on pain topics by conducting a Social Network Analysis (SNA) of a large network of connected users on Twitter. The analysis segmented users based on the sources they cited and measured their influence based on who follows them. As a point of comparison, we also conducted an SNA of Twitter audiences most engaged on oncology topics. Oncology was chosen as a comparison due to what was perceived to be a highly developed online network of both patients and physicians. The populations included in this research included 12,086 accounts that were highly engaged on pain-related topics, and 12,617 accounts that were highly engaged on oncology-related topics. Network statistics were generated for variables including: word use, sources cited, retweets, and mentions. We also statistically analyzed the Twitter follow relationships among select HCPs and patient groups within each SNA. The creation of separate pain and oncology SNAs allowed the team to compare relationships and engagement related to these topics. We found that on Twitter, pain patients and providers appear to interact less than oncology patients and providers. Pain patients do not appear to follow medical professionals or share medical or health-related information on Twitter to the same extent as oncology patients. In addition, we found that pain patients do not communicate on Twitter in the same language as HCPs. Our results are important because they underscore that challenges in communication are not just problematic in face-to-face interactions, but also in digital social network (Twitter) interactions, serving as an additional roadblock to what can be shared decision-making opportunities around pain management. Contributing to this roadblock is access to quality information and a potential need for an online, evidence-based resource hub that could benefit the pain patient community in the same way that cancer.gov serves as a source of aggregated materials for oncology patients and HCPs. This study is an illustration of how social media networks like Twitter can be used to better understand the relationships, language gaps, and shared resources between pain patients and providers and offers a template for using digital social network (Twitter) interactions to research other difficult-to-treat or rare disease states.

Klíčová slova:

Internet – Oncology – Pain management – Pain sensation – Patient advocacy – Social communication – Social networks – Twitter


Zdroje

1. Nahin RL. Estimates of pain prevalence and severity in adults. J Pain. 2015 Aug;16(8):769–80. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2015.05.002 Epub 2015 May 29. 26028573

2. Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee. National Pain Strategy. 2016. pp. 14. Available from: https://iprcc.nih.gov/sites/default/files/HHSNational_Pain_Strategy_508C.pdf.

3. Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee. National Pain Strategy. 2016. pp. 14. Available from: https://iprcc.nih.gov/sites/default/files/HHSNational_Pain_Strategy_508C.pdf.

4. Henry SG, Bell RA, Fenton JJ, Kravitz RL. Communication about chronic pain and opioids in primary care: impact on patient and physician visit experience. Pain. 2017 Nov 3. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001098 29112009

5. Driscoll MA, Kerns RD. Integrated, Team-Based Chronic Pain Management: Bridges from Theory and Research to High Quality Patient Care. In: Ma C, Huang Y, editors. Translational Research in Pain and Itch. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, 2016; vol 904. Springer, Dordrecht.

6. Franklin ZC, Smith NC, Fowler NE. A qualitative investigation of factors that matter to individuals in the pain management process. Disabil Rehabil. 2016 Sep;38(19):1934–42. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2015.1107782 Epub 2016 Jan 4. 26728636

7. Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee. National Pain Strategy. 2016. pp. 15. Available from: https://iprcc.nih.gov/sites/default/files/HHSNational_Pain_Strategy_508C.pdf.

8. Driscoll MA, Kerns RD. Integrated, Team-Based Chronic Pain Management: Bridges from Theory and Research to High Quality Patient Care. In: Ma C, Huang Y (eds). Translational Research in Pain and Itch. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, 2016; vol 904. Springer, Dordrecht.

9. Franklin ZC, Smith NC, Fowler NE. A qualitative investigation of factors that matter to individuals in the pain management process. Disabil Rehabil. 2016 Sep;38(19):1934–42. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2015.1107782 Epub 2016 Jan 4. 26728636

10. Buchman DZ, Ho A, Illes J. You present like a drug addict: patient and clinician perspectives on trust and trustworthiness in chronic pain management. Pain Med. 2016 Aug;17(8):1394–406. doi: 10.1093/pm/pnv083 Epub 2016 Jan 11. 26759389

11. Wang T, Brede M, Ianni A, Mentzakis E. Social interactions in online eating disorder communities: a network perspective. PLoS ONE. 2018 July;13(7):e0200800. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0200800 30059512

12. Fox S. The Social Life of Health Information. Pew Research Center. 2014. Available from: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/15/the-social-life-of-health-information/.

13. Rideout V, Fox S. Digital Health Practices, Social Media Use, and Mental Well-Being Among Teens and Young Adults in the U.S. Hopelab and Well Being Trust. 2018. Available from: https://hopelab.org/report/a-national-survey-by-hopelab-and-well-being-trust-2018/

14. James M. Andersen Center for Health Systems Excellence. Cincinnati Children’s Hospital. 2017. Available from: https://www.cincinnatichildrens.org/service/j/anderson-center/learning-networks.

15. Bataldan M, Bataldan P, Margolis P, Seid M, Armstrong G, Opipari L, et al. Coproduction of healthcare service. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016 Jul;25(7):509–17. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004315 Epub 2015 Sep 16. 26376674

16. Swee-Lin Tan S., Goonawardene N. Internet health information seeking and the patient-physician relationship: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2017 Jan;19(1):e9. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5729 28104579

17. Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee. Federal Pain Research Strategy. 2018. pp. 7. Available from: https://www.iprcc.nih.gov/sites/default/files/FPRS_Research_Recommendations_Final_508C.pdf.

18. Hamad EO, Savundranayagam MY, Holmes JD, Kinsella EA, Johnson AM. Toward a mixed-methods research approach to content analysis in the digital age: the combined content-analysis model and its applications to health care Twitter feeds. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18(3):e60. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5391 26957477

19. Zhang Z, Ahmed W. A comparison of information sharing behaviours across 379 health conditions on Twitter. Int J Public Health 2019 April; 64(3):431–440. doi: 10.1007/s00038-018-1192-5 30585297

20. Zhang Z, Ahmed W. A comparison of information sharing behaviours across 379 health conditions on Twitter. Int J Public Health 2019 April; 64(3):431–440. doi: 10.1007/s00038-018-1192-5 30585297

21. Peoples BK, Midway SR, Sackett D, Lynch A, Cooney PB. Twitter Predicts Citation Rates of Ecological Research. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(11):e0166570. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166570 27835703

22. Finch T, O'Hanlon N, Dudley SP. Tweeting birds: online mentions predict future citations in ornithology. The Royal Society. 2017 Nov 1. I: doi: 10.1098/rsos.171371 29291121

23. Haverfield MC, Giannitrapani K, Timko C, Lorenz K. Patient-Centered Pain Management Communication from the Patient Perspective. J Gen Intern Med. 2018 Aug;33(8):1374–1380. doi: 10.1007/s11606-018-4490-y Epub 2018 May 29. 29845465

24. Evers S, Hsu C, Sherman KJ, Balderson B, Hawkes R, Brewer G, La Porte AM, Yeoman J, Cherkin D. Patient perspectives on communication with primary care physicians about chronic low back pain. Perm J. 2017;21:16–177. doi: 10.7812/TPP/16-177 29035178

25. Luke DA, Harris JK. Network Analysis in Public Health: History, Methods, and Applications. Annu. Rev. Public Health. 2007;28:69–93. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.28.021406.144132 17222078

26. Sinnenberg L, Buttenheim AM, Padrez K, Mancheno C, Ungar L, Merchant RM. Twitter as a tool for health research: a systematic review. Am J Public Health. 2017 January;107(1):e1–e8. Published online 2017 January. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303512 27854532

27. Narayanan V, Barash V, Kelly G, Kollanyi B, Neudert L-M, Howard PN. “Polarization, Partisanship and Junk News Consumption over Social Media in the US.” Data Memo 2018.1. Oxford, UK: Project on Computational Propaganda. comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk.

28. Driscoll MA, Kerns RD. Integrated, Team-Based Chronic Pain Management: Bridges from Theory and Research to High Quality Patient Care. In: Ma C, Huang Y (eds). Translational Research in Pain and Itch. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, 2016; vol 904. Springer, Dordrecht.

29. Markham MJ, Gentile D, Graham DL. Social Media for Networking, Professional Development, and Patient Engagement. In: Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2017. Available from: https://meetinglibrary.asco.org/record/139978/edbook#overview.

30. Naslund JA, Aschbrenner KA, Marsch LA, Bartels SJ. The future of mental health care: peer-to-peer support and social media. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2016 Apr;25(2):113–122. Published online 2016 Jan 8. doi: 10.1017/S2045796015001067 26744309

31. Seal K, Becker W, Tighe J, Li Y, Rife T. Managing chronic pain in primary care: it really does take a village. J Gen Intern Med. 2017;32:931. doi: 10.1007/s11606-017-4047-5 28337689

32. Henry SG, Bell RA, Fenton JJ, Kravitz RL. Communication about chronic pain and opioids in primary care: Impact on patient and physician visit experience. Pain. 2017 Nov 3. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001098 29112009

33. Dalton AF, Bunton AJ, Cykert S, Corbie-Smith G, Dilworth-Anderson P, McGuire FR, et al. Patient characteristics associated with favorable perceptions of patient-provider communication in early-stage lung cancer treatment. J Health Commun. 2014;19(5):532–44. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2013.821550 Epub 2013 Dec 20. 24359327

34. Thorne SE, Stajduhar KI. Patient perceptions of communications on the threshold of cancer survivorship: implications for provider responses. J Cancer Surviv. 2012 Jun;6(2):229–37. doi: 10.1007/s11764-012-0216-z Epub 2012 Mar 20. Page 231. 22431035

35. Fernandez JM, Cenador MBG, Manuel López Millan J, Mendez JAJ, Ledesma MJS. Use of information and communication technologies in clinical practice related to the treatment of pain. Influence on the professional activity and the doctor-patient relationship. J Med Syst. 2017 May;41(5):77. doi: 10.1007/s10916-017-0724-5 Epub 2017 Mar 24. 28337668


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 12