伦理考虑因素和方法学在公共卫生研究中使用 Facebook 数据：系统评价。

Ethical considerations and methodological uses of Facebook data in public health research: A systematic review.

机构信息

City University of New York Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy (CUNY SPH), New York, NY, USA.

City University of New York Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy (CUNY SPH), New York, NY, USA; City University of New York Institute for Implementation Science in Population Health (ISPH), New York, NY, USA.

出版信息

Soc Sci Med. 2023 Apr;322:115807. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.115807. Epub 2023 Feb 24.

DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.115807

PMID:36889221

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Since 2016, around seven in 10 adults in the United States (U.S.) actively use Facebook. While much Facebook data is publicly available for research, many users may not understand how their data are being used. We sought to examine to what extent research ethical practices were employed and the research methods being used with Facebook data in public health research.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review (PROSPERO registration CRD42020148170) of social media-based public health research focused on Facebook published in peer-reviewed journals in English between January 1, 2006 and October 31, 2019. We extracted data on ethical practices, methodology, and data analytic approaches. For studies that included verbatim user content, we attempted to locate users/posts within a timed 10-min period.

RESULTS

Sixty-one studies met eligibility criteria. Just under half (48%, n = 29) sought IRB approval and six (10%) sought and obtained informed consent from Facebook users. Users' written content appeared in 39 (64%) papers, of which 36 presented verbatim quotes. We were able to locate users/posts within 10 min for half (50%, n = 18) of the 36 studies containing verbatim content. Identifiable posts included content about sensitive health topics. We identified six categories of analytic approaches to using these data: network analysis, utility (i.e., usefulness of Facebook as a tool for surveillance, public health dissemination, or attitudes), associational studies of users' behavior and health outcomes, predictive model development, and two types of content analysis (thematic analysis and sentiment analysis). Associational studies were the most likely to seek IRB review (5/6, 83%), while those of utility (0/4, 0%) and prediction (1/4, 25%) were the least likely to do so.

CONCLUSIONS

Stronger guidance on research ethics for using Facebook data, especially the use of personal identifiers, is needed.

摘要

目的

自 2016 年以来，美国约有十分之七的成年人（U.S.）积极使用 Facebook。虽然 Facebook 有很多数据可供研究使用，但许多用户可能并不了解他们的数据是如何被使用的。我们试图研究在公共卫生研究中使用 Facebook 数据时，研究伦理实践的应用程度和所采用的研究方法。

方法

我们对 2006 年 1 月 1 日至 2019 年 10 月 31 日期间发表在同行评议期刊上的基于社交媒体的公共卫生研究（以 Facebook 为重点）进行了系统评价（PROSPERO 注册 CRD42020148170）。我们提取了有关伦理实践、方法和数据分析方法的数据。对于包含用户原创内容的研究，我们试图在 10 分钟的时间内找到用户/帖子。

结果

61 项研究符合入选标准。近一半（48%，n=29）寻求 IRB 批准，6 项（10%）从 Facebook 用户处寻求并获得了知情同意。用户的书面内容出现在 39 篇（64%）论文中，其中 36 篇呈现了逐字引用。我们能够在 10 分钟内找到包含逐字内容的 36 项研究中的一半（50%，n=18）的用户/帖子。可识别的帖子包括有关敏感健康主题的内容。我们确定了使用这些数据的六种分析方法类别：网络分析、效用（即 Facebook 作为监测工具、公共卫生传播或态度的有用性）、用户行为和健康结果的关联研究、预测模型开发以及两种类型的内容分析（主题分析和情感分析）。关联研究最有可能寻求 IRB 审查（5/6，83%），而效用（0/4，0%）和预测（1/4，25%）研究最不可能这样做。