Categorization and Comparison of Influential Twitter Users and Sources Referenced in Tweets for Two Health-Related Topics

  • Aseel AddawoodEmail author
  • Priyanka Balakumar
  • Jana Diesner
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11420)


The internet’s evolution has had a profound influence on how people acquire medical information. The innovation of web 2.0 has been regarded as the primary motivating factor for people who want to access health-related education. In this work, we identify the URL categories that Twitter users incorporate into their messages when engaging in two selected health-related topics (MMR vaccines and healthy diets). Moreover, we identify the categories of influential message authors who engage in these two topics. Finally, we explore the relationship between different user categories and their patterns of URL sharing. Our results show that when it comes to influential users sharing fake news, users discussing vaccine-related topics were more than twice as likely to share a fake news URLs than those discussing healthy diets.


Social media Influential users Health issues 


  1. 1.
    Shearer, E., Gottfried, J.: News use across social media platforms 2017. Pew Research Center (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Miller, L.M.S., Bell, R.A.: Online health information seeking: the influence of age, information trustworthiness, and search challenges. J. Aging Health 24(3), 525–541 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fox, S., Duggan, M.: Health online 2013 (2013).
  4. 4.
    Gualtieri, L.N.: The doctor as the second opinion and the internet as the first. In: Proceedings of the CHI’09 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Morahan-Martin, J., Anderson, C.D.: Information and misinformation online: recommendations for facilitating accurate mental health information retrieval and evaluation. CyberPsychol. Behav. 3(5), 731–746 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Antheunis, M.L., Tates, K., Nieboer, T.E.: Patients’ and health professionals’ use of social media in health care: motives, barriers and expectations. Patient Educ. Couns. 92(3), 426–431 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moorhead, S.A., Hazlett, D.E., Harrison, L., Carroll, J.K., Irwin, A., Hoving, C.: A new dimension of health care: systematic review of the uses, benefits, and limitations of social media for health communication. J. Med. Internet Res. 15(4), e85 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Freeman, K.S., Spyridakis, J.H.: An examination of factors that affect the credibility of online health information. Tech. Commun. 51(2), 239–263 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eysenbach, G.: Credibility of health information and digital media: new perspectives and implications for youth. In: Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility, pp. 123–154 (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kitchens, B., Harle, C.A., Li, S.: Quality of health-related online search results. Decis. Support Syst. 57, 57454–57462 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Castillo, C., Mendoza, M., Poblete, B.: Information credibility on Twitter. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on World Wide Web. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kinsella, S., Wang, M., Breslin, John G., Hayes, C.: Improving categorisation in social media using hyperlinks to structured data sources. In: Antoniou, G., et al. (eds.) ESWC 2011. LNCS, vol. 6644, pp. 390–404. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). Scholar
  13. 13.
    The Media Insight Project. ‘Who shared it?’ How Americans decide what news to trust on social media, 12 June 2017.
  14. 14.
    Viviani, M., Pasi, G.: Credibility in social media: opinions, news, and health information—a survey. Wiley Interdisc. Rev. Data Mining Knowl. Discov. 7(5), e1209 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Munson, S.A., Cavusoglu, H., Frisch, L., Fels, S.: Sociotechnical challenges and progress in using social media for health. J. Med. Internet Res. 15(10), e226 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gupta, A., Kumaraguru, P.: Credibility ranking of tweets during high impact events. In: Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Privacy and Security in Online Social Media. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mendoza, M., Poblete, B., Castillo, C.: Twitter under crisis: can we trust what we RT? In: Proceedings of the First Workshop on Social Media Analytics. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gupta, A., Kumaraguru, P.: Twitter explodes with activity in mumbai blasts! A lifeline or an unmonitored daemon in the lurking? Technical report, IIITD-TR-2011-005, Delhi (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Morris, M.R., Counts, S., Roseway, A., Hoff, A., Schwarz, J.: Tweeting is believing? Understanding microblog credibility perceptions. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Addawood, A., Rezapour, R., Mishra, S., Schneider, J., Diesner, J.: Developing an information source lexicon (2017)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rao, A., Spasojevic, N., Li, Z., DSouza, T.: Klout score: measuring influence across multiple social networks. In: 2015 IEEE International Conference on Proceedings of the Big Data (Big Data). IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Krauss, M.J., et al.: Hookah-related Twitter chatter: a content analysis. Preventing chronic Dis. 12, E121 (2015)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Liu, Y.: Mining social media to understand consumers’ health concerns and the public’s opinion on controversial health topics (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aseel Addawood
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Priyanka Balakumar
    • 1
  • Jana Diesner
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignChampaignUSA
  2. 2.Al Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic UniversityRiyadhSaudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations