Chilman Natasha, Morant Nicola, Lloyd-Evans Brynmor, Wackett Jane, Johnson Sonia
Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
JMIR Ment Health. 2021 Jun 29;8(6):e25742. doi: 10.2196/25742.
Analyzing Twitter posts enables rapid access to how issues and experiences are socially shared and constructed among communities of health service users and providers, in ways that traditional qualitative methods may not.
To enrich the understanding of mental health crisis care in the United Kingdom, this study explores views on crisis resolution teams (CRTs) expressed on Twitter. We aim to identify the similarities and differences among views expressed on Twitter compared with interviews and focus groups.
We used Twitter's advanced search function to retrieve public tweets on CRTs. A thematic analysis was conducted on 500 randomly selected tweets. The principles of refutational synthesis were applied to compare themes with those identified in a multicenter qualitative interview study.
The most popular hashtag identified was #CrisisTeamFail, where posts were principally related to poor quality of care and access, particularly for people given a personality disorder diagnosis. Posts about CRTs giving unhelpful self-management advice were common, as were tweets about resource strains on mental health services. This was not identified in the research interviews. Although each source yielded unique themes, there were some overlaps with themes identified via interviews and focus groups, including the importance of rapid access to care. Views expressed on Twitter were generally more critical than those obtained via face-to-face methods.
Traditional qualitative studies may underrepresent the views of more critical stakeholders by collecting data from participants accessed via mental health services. Research on social media content can complement traditional or face-to-face methods and ensure that a broad spectrum of viewpoints can inform service development and policy.
分析推特帖子能够让我们快速了解问题和经历是如何在卫生服务使用者和提供者群体中进行社会分享和构建的，而传统的定性方法可能无法做到这一点。
为了深化对英国心理健康危机护理的理解，本研究探讨了推特上表达的关于危机解决团队（CRTs）的观点。我们旨在确定推特上表达的观点与访谈和焦点小组中表达的观点之间的异同。
我们使用推特的高级搜索功能来检索关于危机解决团队的公开推文。对随机选取的500条推文进行了主题分析。应用反驳性综合原则将这些主题与多中心定性访谈研究中确定的主题进行比较。
确定的最热门话题标签是#CrisisTeamFail，相关帖子主要涉及护理质量差和难以获得护理服务的问题，尤其是对于被诊断患有精神障碍的人。关于危机解决团队给出无用的自我管理建议的帖子很常见，关于心理健康服务资源紧张的推文也很常见。这在研究访谈中并未被发现。虽然每个来源都产生了独特的主题，但与通过访谈和焦点小组确定的主题存在一些重叠，包括快速获得护理的重要性。推特上表达的观点通常比通过面对面方法获得的观点更具批判性。
传统的定性研究可能通过从通过心理健康服务接触到的参与者那里收集数据，而使更具批判性的利益相关者的观点代表性不足。对社交媒体内容的研究可以补充传统或面对面方法，并确保广泛的观点能够为服务发展和政策提供信息。
