Abstract
Objective To use the validated Online Quality Assessment Tool (OQAT) to assess; the quality of online nutrition information, the difference between re-tweeted articles, and the impact of original information source.
Setting Twitter (X) as little known about the quality of nutrition information shared on the platform.
Design Tweet Archiver collected tweets including the word ‘nutrition’ on seven randomly selected days in 2021. Tweets were screened for URL inclusion and grouped based on retweet status. URLs were assessed using the OQAT. Rasch measures defined quality levels (low, satisfactory, and high-quality), while mean differences of 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 URLs were collected from 18,230 tweets. After screening for relevance, 1,005 articles were assessed (9,568 were out of scope) sourced from: professional-blogs (n=354), news-outlets (n=213), companies (n=166), personal-blogs (n=120), NGOs (n=60), magazines (n=55), universities (n=19), 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 quality of retweeted (n=267, sum of rank, 461.6) and non-retweeted articles (n=738, sum of rank, 518.0), U = 87475, 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 tended to be lower-quality sources of nutritional information.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
