Advertisement

Information Quality of Reddit Link Posts on Health News

  • Haichen Zhou
  • Bei YuEmail author
Conference paper
  • 194 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 12051)

Abstract

Inaccuracy has been a common problem in news coverage of scientific research. This problem has been particularly prevalent in health research news. Health research news usually spreads from research publications and press releases to news and social media. In this study we examined the information quality of the Reddit link posts that introduce health news stories. We developed a coding schema to annotate the inaccurate information in a sample of 250 link posts on health research news within the Reddit community r/Health in 2018. The result shows that most link posts simply copied the original news headlines verbatim, while some paraphrased the news stories by adding, deleting, replacing, and combining content. We found that 12 paraphrased link posts contained inaccurate information that may mislead the readers. The most common type of inaccuracy is exaggeration resulted from changing the original speculative claims to direct causal statements by removing the modal verbs such as “may” and “might”. The result shows that although the link posts of health news were generally faithful to the original news stories, exaggerated claims may lead to false hope for researchers and patients.

Keywords

Reddit Health news Paraphrasing Information quality 

References

  1. 1.
    Tankard, J.W., Ryan, M.: News source perceptions of accuracy of science coverage. Journal. Q. 51, 219–225 (1974).  https://doi.org/10.1177/107769907405100204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pellechia, M.G.: Trends in science coverage: a content analysis of three US newspapers. Public Underst. Sci. 6, 49–68 (1997).  https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/6/1/004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sumner, P., et al.: The association between exaggeration in health related science news and academic press releases: retrospective observational study. BMJ 349, g7015 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chang, C.: Inaccuracy in health research news: a typology and predictions of scientists’ perceptions of the accuracy of research news. J. Health Commun. 20, 177–186 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2014.917746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fahnestock, J.: Accommodating science: the rhetorical life of scientific facts. Writ. Commun. 15, 330–350 (1998).  https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088398015003006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Buhse, S., Rahn, A.C., Bock, M., Mühlhauser, I.: Causal interpretation of correlational studies – analysis of medical news on the website of the official journal for German physicians. PLoS ONE 13, e0196833 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0196833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Glenski, M., Pennycuff, C., Weninger, T.: Consumers and curators: browsing and voting patterns on reddit. IEEE Trans. Comput. Soc. Syst. 4, 196–206 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1109/TCSS.2017.2742242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brossard, D., Scheufele, D.A.: Science, new media, and the public. Science 339, 40–41 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1232329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ovadia, S.: More than just cat pictures: Reddit as a curated news source. Behav. Soc. Sci. Libr. 34, 37–40 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1080/01639269.2015.996491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhao, Y., Zhang, J.: Consumer health information seeking in social media: a literature review. Health Inf. Libr. J. 34, 268–283 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    de Belt, T.H.V., Engelen, L.J., Berben, S.A., Teerenstra, S., Samsom, M., Schoonhoven, L.: Internet and social media for health-related information and communication in health care: preferences of the Dutch general population. J. Med. Internet Res. 15, e220 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sharma, R., Wigginton, B., Meurk, C., Ford, P., Gartner, C.: Motivations and limitations associated with vaping among people with mental illness: a qualitative analysis of Reddit discussions. IJERPH 14, 7 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14010007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cole, J., Watkins, C., Kleine, D.: Health advice from internet discussion forums: how bad is dangerous? J. Med. Internet Res. 18, e4 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.5051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stoddard, G.: Popularity dynamics and intrinsic quality in Reddit and hacker news. In: ICWSM (2015)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Record, R.A., Silberman, W.R., Santiago, J.E., Ham, T.: I sought it, i Reddit: examining health information engagement behaviors among Reddit users. J. Health Commun. 23, 470–476 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Horne, B.D., Adali, S., Sikdar, S.: Identifying the social signals that drive online discussions: a case study of Reddit communities. In: 2017 26th International Conference on Computer Communication and Networks (ICCCN), pp. 1–9 (2017)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Medvedev, A.N., Delvenne, J.-C., Lambiotte, R.: Modelling structure and predicting dynamics of discussion threads in online boards. J. Complex Netw. 7, 67–82 (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1093/comnet/cny010MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Straub-Cook, P.: Source, please? Digit. Journal. 6, 1314–1332 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2017.1412801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aniche, M., et al.: How modern news aggregators help development communities shape and share knowledge. In: 2018 IEEE/ACM 40th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 499–510 (2018)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shinyama, Y., Sekine, S.: Paraphrase acquisition for information extraction. In: Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Paraphrasing, vol. 16, pp. 65–71. Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Callison-Burch, C., Koehn, P., Osborne, M.: Improved statistical machine translation using paraphrases. In: Proceedings of the Main Conference on Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association of Computational Linguistics, pp. 17–24. Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg (2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Barrón-Cedeño, A., Vila, M., Martí, M., Rosso, P.: Plagiarism meets paraphrasing: insights for the next generation in automatic plagiarism detection. Comput. Linguist. 39, 917–947 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1162/COLI_a_00153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fader, A., Zettlemoyer, L., Etzioni, O.: Paraphrase-driven learning for open question answering. In: Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Long Papers, vol. 1, pp. 1608–1618. Association for Computational Linguistics, Sofia (2013)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Culicover, P.W.: Paraphrase generation and information retrieval from stored text. Mech. Transl. Comput. Linguist. 11, 78–88 (1968)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bhagat, R., Hovy, E.: What is a paraphrase? Comput. Linguist. 39, 463–472 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1162/COLI_a_00166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vila, M., Martí, M.A., Rodríguez, H.: Paraphrase concept and typology. A linguistically based and computationally oriented approach. Procesamiento del Lenguaje Nat. 46, 83–90 (2010)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fujita, A.: Automatic generation of syntactically well-formed and semantically appropriate paraphrases (2005)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Smith, D.E., Wilson, A.J., Henry, D.A.: Monitoring the quality of medical news reporting: early experience with media doctor. Med. J. Aust. 183, 190–193 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.2005.tb06992.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    How well do Canadian media outlets convey medical treatment information? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3090174/
  30. 30.
    Schwitzer, G.: How do US journalists cover treatments, tests, products, and procedures? An evaluation of 500 stories. PLOS Med. 5, e95 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chang, C.: Inaccuracy in health research news: a typology and predictions of scientists’ perceptions of the accuracy of research news. J. Health Commun. 20, 177–186 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Woloshin, S., Schwartz, L.M.: Press releases: translating research into news. JAMA 287, 2856–2858 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Moynihan, R., et al.: Coverage by the news media of the benefits and risks of medications. N. Engl. J. Med. 342, 1645–1650 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Greenberg, S.A.: How citation distortions create unfounded authority: analysis of a citation network. BMJ 339, b2680 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cyranoski, D.: ‘Reprogrammed’ stem cells approved to mend human hearts for the first time. Nature 557, 619 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nanjing Agricultural UniversityNanjingChina
  2. 2.Syracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA

Personalised recommendations