Background: 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. Objective: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: 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. Trial Registration:

中文翻译：

---

Twitter 用户对心理健康危机解决团队护理的看法与利益相关者访谈和焦点小组的比较：定性分析

背景：分析 Twitter 帖子可以快速了解问题和经验如何在卫生服务用户和提供者社区之间以传统定性方法可能无法实现的方式在社会上共享和构建。目标：为了丰富对英国心理健康危机护理的理解，本研究探讨了在 Twitter 上表达的对危机解决团队 (CRT) 的看法。与访谈和焦点小组相比，我们旨在确定 Twitter 上表达的观点之间的异同。方法：我们使用 Twitter 的高级搜索功能来检索 CRT 上的公开推文。对 500 条随机选择的推文进行了专题分析。反驳综合的原则被应用于将主题与多中心定性访谈研究中确定的主题进行比较。结果：最流行的标签是#CrisisTeamFail，其中的帖子主要与护理和访问质量差有关，特别是对于患有人格障碍的人诊断。关于 CRT 提供无益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。这在研究访谈中没有发现。尽管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。在 Twitter 上表达的观点通常比通过面对面方法获得的观点更为关键。结论：传统的定性研究可能会通过从通过心理健康服务访问的参与者那里收集数据来低估更关键的利益相关者的观点。对社交媒体内容的研究可以补充传统或面对面的方法，并确保广泛的观点可以为服务发展和政策提供信息。试用注册：