Tag: social media

Categories : COVID General InterestTags :

Ridhwaan Suliman on Twitter: Graphs, Insight and Empathy

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Tracy le Blanc from Pexels
Photo by Tracy le Blanc from Pexels

The Daily Maverick interviewed Dr Ridhwaan Suliman, a senior researcher at CSIR who has entered the spotlight by posting his concise, easy-to-understand COVID numbers graphs on Twitter.

Trained as a mechanical engineer and with a PhD in applied mathematics, he develops computational tools to model and simulate physical systems and processes. Equations in real-world contexts and how they govern physical systems are the relationships he translates into code. And from the code and modelling he can find solutions to make things work more optimally.

As a boy, he took apart his brothers’ old toys to see how they worked, and he took the same approach with COVID data to make sense of it. He started tracking the data in early 2020, and wanted to contribute in some way amidst all the growing uncertainty.

“When I started seeing the raw numbers that were being fed to us daily I couldn’t quite make sense of it myself because the raw numbers in isolation don’t show what’s happening, actually.”

As he tweeted his analyses, he drew attention for his concise summaries of the situation, and praise for helping people to understand the trends. However, he stresses that this is all unpaid, with nobody else’s agenda and that he is not a medical expert.

https://twitter.com/rid1tweets/status/1434570126091821062
This week’s update from Dr Ridhwaan

“I’m just comfortable with the numbers.” He gratefully turns to the science experts he engages with on Twitter because “there’s so much more to learn”, he says. That, and a lot of background reading, which he readily dives into.

Dr Suliman’s tracking of the data let him identify gaps and to add to the call for open data, better data collection and smarter analysis. This allows for the factoring in of more variables and laying out of better parameters. “Sure, data can be manipulated to fit a certain narrative, but the benefits outweigh the risks,” he says.

Even in the polarising, easily toxic world of Twitter, Dr Suliman’s interactions show a great empathy.

“We’ve all had numerous moments in this pandemic when things have been depressing and that’s probably something that doesn’t come out on Twitter because you’re generally only sharing things when things are hunky-dory, you don’t share when you’re not okay. There have been many times when I’ve just wanted to stop tweeting, but I get drawn back by people who reach out and say ‘you’re helping me’ – and that’s good enough reason to continue.”

Since he first started on Twitter, he has since appeared numerous times on television to explain the data behind COVID numbers.

Despite his newfound fame however, he looks forward to the time when he can travel again.  “I’ll trade the followers any day for our lives to go back to some sense of normality,” he says.

Source: Daily Maverick

Categories : COVIDTags :

August Poll Results; 18-34s Upbeat on Vaccines

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Mufid Majnun on Unsplash

To date, nearly 12 600 000 vaccinations have been administered in South Africa, with 23.66% of the adult population now fully vaccinated. Quicknews’ August poll revealed that 44% of site visitors felt that the government’s COVID vaccine rollout was “Acceptable”, while 51% felt it was either “Poor” or “Very Poor”. Only 5% rated it “Good” or “Very Good”.

The Department of Health’s COVID-19 and Vaccine Social Listening Report finds that the demand for vaccination had increased, with around 250 000 daily jabs, fuelled by a surge by the recent eligibility of the 18 – 34 age group. The report highlights include:

  • Social media conversations are more positive about the vaccine rollout with improved services, such as free transport and pop-up vaccination sites. Barriers to vaccination seem now to be more of an issue than vaccine hesitancy. It is noticeable that most anti-vax videos originated from other countries (especially the US), while most pro-vax are local (eg celebrating being vaccinated).
  • While vaccination is met with eagerness and discussion among the 18 – 34 age group, they also still appear to be the most vaccine-resistant age group, believing themselves to be healthy and not needing a vaccine. Discussion over whether vaccines should be mandatory is ongoing, eg to go to concerts, with some disinformation suggesting that it is already happening, and a sign of control by the state.
  • There has been increasing media coverage supportive to vaccines. The Department of Health’s vaccine demand acceleration plan has been met positively, as well as favourable coverage of the FDA’s full approval of the Pfizer vaccine. 
  • However, there are some negative views of the government’s vaccine prioritisation, and is seen as neglecting basic services such as sanitation and public transport. 
  • A WhatsApp survey run by Praekelt.org suggests that 90% of 4,000 people who had been vaccinated are willing to encourage others to do so. People reportedly have more rational concerns about vaccines (efficacy, side effects, developed so quickly, reports of deaths) and not the wilder conspiracy theories (eg tracking devices, depopulation).
  • Disinformation and problematic statements such as those from Rev Kenneth Meshoe vaccine-resistant statements and support for anti-vaxxers Dr Susan Vosloo and Prof Tim Noakes have undermined vaccine trust.
  • There is some debate over preferences over currently available vaccines or those that may be available later, eg Astra Zeneca, Sinovac. Confusion on reports that J&J second dose might be required and other booster shots.
  • The report notes some anti-vaccination sentiment in the Muslim community, with messages circulated that vaccines are haram (forbidden by Sharia law), though most Muslim authorities produce responsible evidence-based views.

Source: SA Coronavirus Portal

Categories : Mental HealthTags :

Social Media Breaks Don’t Relieve Boredom or Stress

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Tracy le Blanc from Pexels

A team of researchers has found that workers using their smartphone to take short breaks do not find reductions in boredom or fatigue. 

Smartphones have had an inescapable impact on society, and allow users to engage with a variety of apps. Anecdotal evidence also suggests that people use their phones in other ways as well, such as to alleviate boredom or to reduce stress. The researchers noted that many people use their smartphones to take short breaks from their work—and they wondered if doing so actually helped with boredom or reduced stress.

To find out, researchers at Radboud University’s Behavioural Science Institute in The Netherlands recruited 83 PhD candidates, each of whom were asked to report their level of boredom and fatigue every hour while they were working. They also received a smartphone app that logged its usage.

In comparing phone usage with self-reported levels of boredom and fatigue, the researchers were able to track the volunteers’ use of their phones to deal with boredom or fatigue. They found that not only did using their phones in such a manner not alleviate boredom or fatigue, in many cases it in fact made things worse. Volunteers who described themselves as more bored or more fatigued than others in the study did not take longer smartphone breaks than those feeling less bored or fatigued.

The researchers acknowledged that their study was small but their results suggest that workers might consider fatigue or boredom reducing alternatives. They noted also that some prior research has shown that boredom can sometimes be alleviated by engaging in activities that bring some degree of joy. They suggest that rather than mindlessly scrolling, they find ways to use their phones to bring them joy, such as by looking at pictures of loved ones.

Source: Medical Xpress

Journal information: Jonas Dora et al, Fatigue, boredom and objectively measured smartphone use at work, Royal Society Open Science (2021). DOI: 10.1098/rsos.201915

Categories : General InterestTags :

Validity of Screen Time Studies Questioned

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Tracy le Blanc from Pexels


In the largest study of its kind to date, a systematic review and meta-analysis of people’s perceptions of their screen time compares to their actual usage, estimates of usage were found to be accurate only in about five per cent of studies.

Multiple studies have linked increasing amounts of ‘screen time’, looking at and using devices such as computers, tablets and smartphones, to a wide range of negative health outcomes such as depression and inactivity.

The international team say their results cast doubt on the validity of research on the impact of screen time on mental health, and its influences on government policy, as the vast majority rely on participants’ self-reported estimates on the amount of time spent on digital devices, rather than logs of actual usage, or tracked time. This research was published in Nature Human Behaviour. 

For lead researcher Dr Doug Parry at Stellenbosch University, the studies highlight how much our current perceptions of technology are built up on long-lasting, unchallenged assumptions.

“For decades, researchers have relied on estimates of how we use various technologies to study how people use digital media and the potential outcomes this behaviour can lead to. Our findings suggest that much of this work may be on unstable footing.”

“The screen time discrepancies highlight that we simply do not know enough yet about the actual effects (both positive and negative) of our media use. Researchers, journalists, members of the public, and crucially policy makers need to question the quality of evidence when they consider research on media uses and effects. We can no longer simply take claims of harmful effects at face value.”

The researchers also investigated whether questionnaires and scales addressing ‘problematic’ media use, such as excessive or so-called ‘addictive’ media use, were suitable substitutes for logged usage. There was even less of an association with usage logs to these measures.

Exhaustive literature survey

The research identified every existing study that compares logged or tracked media use measures with equivalent self-reports. Screening more than 12 000 articles for inclusion, they found 47 studies that included both types of measures. From here they were able to identify and extract 106 comparisons, based on 50 000 individuals, to address the question of how closely self-report estimates relate to logs of actual usage.

“These highly flawed studies are over-inflating the relationships between digital media use and typically negative outcomes, such as mental health symptoms and cognitive impairments, which of course explains the pervading view that smartphones among other technologies are bad for us,” commented Dr Brit Davidson from the University of Bath’s School of Management.

“Media and technology use takes the blame for everything from increases in teenage depression and suicide to higher incidence of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and violence. If we want to properly investigate harms, we must first tackle assumptions about screen time and disentangle how people are actually using their phones or other technologies of interest.

“Importantly, these questionable studies are also being used to influence policy. The UK and Canada both have forms of screen time guidelines based on poorly conducted research, which is clearly worrying and hard to reverse.”

The researchers hope that the findings will prompt a change in how technology use is measured, as well as how society regards technology use, leading to a better understanding of our relationship with technology.

Source: News-Medical.Net

Journal information: Parry, D. A., et al. (2021) A systematic review and meta-analysis of discrepancies between logged and self-reported digital media use. Nature Human Behaviour. doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01117-5.

Categories : Medical Research & Technology Mental HealthTags :

Distraction a Big Problem in Teletherapy Sessions

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Tracy le Blanc from Pexels

A small survey has found that although therapists appear to prefer virtual sessions over in-person meetings, a significant proportion admit to being distracted while delivering care.

A third of respondents admitted to providing lower-quality care to clients during online sessions. Overall, 39% admitted to checking emails and social media while providing virtual care.

These were the results of a survey of 600 therapists conducted and published by OnlineTherapy.com, a virtual directory for teletherapists and counselors. It’s also an affiliate of the controversial app BetterHelp, stating on their website that the company “may receive compensation from BetterHelp if you purchase products or services through the links provided.”

Online care is generally well received by therapists: nearly half said they prefer virtual sessions over in-person meetings. They appreciated many advantages of virtual therapy, such as working from home which allows therapists to keep a flexible schedule and increases their availability. Video sessions also provide therapists with a uniquely intimate look into their clients’ daily lives, making assessing their mental health easier.

However, teletherapy has introduced its own challenges. Besides the struggle to remain for therapists to stay focused themselves, 56% of those surveyed said their clients are more easily distracted during virtual sessions, and 48% reported technological issues as a major impediment to their practice.

Peter Yellowlees, MD, of UC Davis Health in Sacramento, California, noted with concern and confusion that 16% of therapists reported substance use before or during their sessions.

“There are all sorts of people in this world who call themselves therapists, most of whom have very reasonable training, but quite a number don’t,” Dr Yellowlees told MedPage Today, expressing serious doubts about whether these rates of social media distraction and substance use during virtual sessions would ring true for mental health clinicians with PhDs and MDs.

According to a spokesperson from OnlineTherapy.com, the survey only asked if respondents were currently practicing mental health professionals and did not ask for their credentials or certifications.

The results of the survey did, however, echo Dr Yellowlees’s own concerns of mental health problems on the rise of among therapists in general. The vast majority (90%) said that during the last year they suffered mental health issues, including anxiety disorders (50%) and depressive disorder (48%). This would likely impact the level of care that a therapist able to provide to their clients.

A further concern is that 17% of respondents reported seriously considered suicide since the start of the pandemic.

But  Dr Yellowlees also sees teletherapy as a way for therapists to start getting the help that they need, rather than simply treating themselves in fear of stigma or possible repercussions for their licences.

“It’s undoubtedly helped significantly,” Dr Yellowlees said. “We know that certain teletherapies are actually good for the mental health of providers, as well as the patients.”

Source: MedPage Today

Categories : COVIDTags :

South African Volunteers Battle Vaccine Misinformation

On By ModernMedia
Man with LED mask reading a burning newspaper. Photo by Connor Danylenko from Pexels.

As the long-delayed vaccine rollout in South Africa has begun, the government has run a public campaign to tackle prevalent health myths. But there are also volunteers who are waging an online battle against COVID and vaccine misinformation, as reported by the BBC.

Sarah Downs, who is studying molecular biology and infectious diseases, debunks false claims under the alias Mistress of Science and is fighting a surge of misinformation in South Africa. A relatively small collection of Facebook groups and users are responsible for promoting this misinformation. When she tweeted about her grandmother’s passing, a COVID denier questioned whether an autopsy had been performed. 
“We estimate that it’s about 20 000 South Africans who are actually active on anti-vax Facebook pages,” said Prof Hannelie Meyer, a pharmacist and adviser to the South African Vaccine and Immunisation Centre (Savic).

Most anti-vaccine claims in South Africa actually originate in the United States, according to a 2015 study. Anecdotal evidence, such as the spread of false claims about vaccines and DNA by an American osteopath, show this trend still holds in the pandemic.

Prof Meyer said that while data on vaccine hesitancy in SA are limited, studies indicate that more wealthy and educated groups, particularly among whites, are less willing to be vaccinated.

Leading virologist Prof Jeffrey Mphahlele has also pushed back against rumours, such as COVID and its vaccines being a Western plot to reduce Africa’s population and control its natural resources. He called the misinformation “mind boggling” – pointing out the supposed plot would require the West to create a virus that killed millions of its own people.

Even authority figures have promulgated falsehoods: South Africa’s top judge was recently criticised after a video showed him linking vaccines to a “Satanic agenda.”

One of the most prominent groups on Facebook, with some 10 000 members, seeks to spread “awareness” about vaccines but the members’ hard-line anti-vaccine attitude is very clear, ridiculing or dismissing vaccines. One video posted in the group – originally aired on an evangelical US Christian television programme – suggested getting a jab could lead to “a lifetime of illness”.

Sarah Downs stepped in to help answer questions amidst the deluge of misinformation, and one person she helped was Sheona Lottering, a swimming teacher.

“I had a friend that forwarded me a German article,” Sheona said. “She was trying to convince me that death was one of the side-effects [of a COVID vaccination].

“And I was a little bit freaked out about that.”

Sarah explained the subtleties around adverse events to her, and now Sheona keeps in contact with Sarah over difficult vaccine-related questions.

Lisa (not her real name) spends hours lurking in Facebook groups to guide people towards trusted sources of health information.

“The claims are so bizarre I could hardly believe there are people believing these things,” she said. “I don’t like misinformation, so when I see something, I just try to correct it.”

Doing this for over a decade, she’s seen communities grow and knows their tactics. She said that young mothers are a particular target in Facebook groups, where posts are coordinated to try and convince them not to vaccinate their children., which is when Lisa steps in. She keeps her inbox open and believes gentle communication works best – asking about people’s concerns rather than shouting statistics at them.

But Sarah, Lisa and other volunteers we spoke to risk exposing themselves to online abuse, and the prospects of persuasion can often seem slim. It’s difficult, pro-health work – that isn’t paid. So do they judge success?

“I think if I can just help one person be a little bit less terrified… that’s what I aim to get out of it,” Sarah says. “And if they’re willing to take the vaccine, even more so.”

Source: BBC News

Categories : COVID General InterestTags :

A Dozen Accounts Responsible for Majority of COVID Misinformation

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Connor Danylenko from Pexels

According to a report from the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), the majority of COVID and vaccine misinformation posts emanate from a dozen accounts.

Out of 812 000 anti-vaccine messages shared or posted on social media platforms between Feb 1 and March 16, 2021, 65% were attributed to just a handful of individuals, whom the report authors have dubbed the “Disinformation Dozen”, 13 users spread across 12 accounts (one of the accounts refers to a couple, Ty and Charlene Bollinger, who are alternative medicine activists).

Some of the individuals named include entrepreneur Joseph Mercola, author Robert F Kennedy Jr and chiropractor Ben Tapper, with the report including examples of the COVID misinformation that they shared on various social media platforms.

Mercola for example has shared his views on unproven COVID cures in various anti-vaxxer groups on Facebook, including one article saying “hydrogen peroxide treatment can successfully treat most viral respiratory illnesses, including coronavirus” getting 4600 shares.

The report notes that Robert Kennedy Jr often shares misinformation linked COVID vaccines to deaths, and his organisation, Children’s Health Defense, released a film in March that targeted American black and Latino communities with anti-vaccine messages. 

“According to our recent report, anti-vaccine activists on Facebook, YouTube, Instagram and Twitter reach more than 59 million followers, making these the largest and most important social media platforms for anti-vaxxers,” said CCDH CEO Imran Ahmed.

“Despite repeatedly violating Facebook, Instagram and Twitter’s terms of service agreements, nine of the Disinformation Dozen remain on all three platforms, while just three have been comprehensively removed from just one platform,” the report added.

To combat the disinformation problem, the CCDH urged social media companies to deplatform the Disinformation Dozen, along with key organisations associated with the 12 individuals.

In a statement to Engadet, Facebook took issue with the report, claiming that “it taken action against some of the group”. However, the report contends that Facebook’s algorithm struggle to identify COVID misinformation.

Source: The Star

Categories : General InterestTags :

Heart Doctors’ Twitter Popularity Is Unrelated to Their Publications

On By ModernMedia
Phone with popular social media apps including Facebook and Twitter. Photo by Tracy Le Blanc from Pexels.

Having large numbers of widely cited publications has no bearing on the Twitter popularity of academics in the interventional cardiology community, a new study has found. 

The study, by Davide Capodanno, MD, PhD, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Policlinico “G Rodolico-San Marco” in Catania, Italy, and colleagues, found that academic impact through papers and citations, as calculated by the Hirsch index (or h-index) was found to be unrelated to whether or not academics were in the top quartile of Twitter followers (> 736 followers).

“Indeed, accounts generating a stream of valuable content are more likely to be followed. In addition, some accounts may take advantage of celebrity to amplify their success, in a kind of incremental cycle,” wrote the authors.
Rather, Twitter followers were defined by factors mostly related to time and effort spent on the platform.

Having abundant tweets (> 505 tweets, adjusted OR 16.39), along with individual charisma (‘Kardashian index’ >5, adjusted OR 8.66), were the most significant predictors. Large number of accounts user follows (> 309 following), tweet rate (> 2.6 tweets per week), a large cooperation network and being affiliated to the US were also predictive of the heart doctors’ Twitter popularity.

“Indeed, accounts generating a stream of valuable content are more likely to be followed. In addition, some accounts may take advantage of celebrity to amplify their success, in a kind of incremental cycle,” according to the authors.

Individual charisma per the ‘Kardashian index‘, which measures discrepancy between social media reputation and publication record, was not a significant factor in the rate at which someone amassed followers.

“In aggregate, our results suggest that a prediction rule for durable popularity on Twitter is to be active and generate valuable contents rather than relying on individual academic or social reputation,” Capodanno’s team concluded.

An earlier study had shown that the reverse was true; the more Twitter followers, the greater their academic standing.
Limitations include not being able to account for anonymous or pseudonym accounts, and the results may not be generalisable to the interventional cardiology community as a whole.

Source: MedPage Today

Journal information: D’Arrigo P, et al “Determinants of popularity and natural history of social media accounts in interventional cardiology” JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2021; DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2021.01.021.

Categories : Ethics and Law General InterestTags :

Op-ed: Facebook Medical ‘Fact Checking’ Has No Room for Debate

On By ModernMedia

Fact-checking is increasingly important in an era of disinformation on social media, especially with the current COVID pandemic, but an article for MedPage Today calls into question the process for Facebook’s medical fact-checking.

After an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by Marty Makary, MD, MPH, Johns Hopkins professor and editor-in-chief at MedPage Today, was labelled “misleading” by Facebook fact checkers, another op-ed in MedPage Today asks how the social media giant is choosing its medical fact-checkers. 

Mystified by why this would be labelled “misleading” by Facebook, and setting aside the ‘veracity’ of the article, Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, a haematologist-oncologist and associate professor of medicine at the University of California San Francisco, investigated the website HealthFeedback.org that Facebook uses to fact-check some of its medical articles. 

The process involves two to four reviewers chosen to examine an article. Prior to the COVID pandemic, medical fact checking appears to have been done by academics, but the flood of disinformation has resulted in the change of this process, Dr Prasad noted.  

In one instance, a reviewer for the article was selected because he had already written an article critical of Dr Markary’s op-ed: in other words, he was selected because he had already announced his bias.

The website’s picking and choosing of reviewers “felt like a high school clique”, Dr Prasad wrote. One that allowed them to confirm their previously held ideas about COVID and extinguish differing viewpoints. Labelling the alternative views as misleading “instantly usurps the reader of their ability to make up their own mind. It is antithetical to the spirit of the academy.”

He found that the fact-checkers typically had large Twitter followings, while the typical medical professor seems to have them in the hundreds. This makes sense, Dr Prasad wrote, as leading academics and authorities are likely too busy to be courting large numbers of followers on Twitter.
Other than a “vague explanation” of the feedback process, Dr Prasad could not find any information on how Facebook chooses its reviewers, which of the billions of posts and articles on Facebook to fact-check, whether anyone is paid and how appeals are made.

Source: MedPage Today