TABLE 2—

Predictors of Being Followed Among Twitter Users Tweeting About #childhoodobesity: June 2013

Variable	Null Model, OR (95% CI)	Model 1, OR (95% CI)	Model 2, OR (95% CI)	Model 3, OR (95% CI)
Constant	0.009 (0.009, 0.010)	0.003 (0.003, 0.003)	0.0003 (0.0002, 0.0004)	0.001 (0.00001, 0.480)
Main effects
General predictors of being followed
No. of followers		1.04 (1.04, 1.05)	1.04 (1.04, 1.04)	1.03 (1.03, 1.04)
No. of tweets		0.99 (0.99, 0.99)	1.00 (1.00, 1.00)	0.99 (0.99, 1.00)
Influence on being followed, by sector membership
Private person (Ref)		1.00	1.00	1.00
Education		2.79 (2.05, 3.81)	1.12 (0.82, 1.53)	1.09 (0.89, 1.33)
Government		8.90 (7.42, 10.67)	4.44 (3.69, 5.34)	1.83 (1.35, 2.49)
Nonprofit		6.95 (6.18, 7.81)	3.42 (3.03, 3.86)	1.41 (0.76, 2.62)
For profit		2.56 (2.25, 2.91)	1.22 (1.07, 1.39)	1.06 (0.78, 1.43)
Media		4.44 (3.87, 5.09)	2.34 (2.03, 2.70)	1.53 (1.16, 2.01)
Other		1.24 (0.31, 5.00)	0.47 (0.12, 1.90)	1.21 (0.04, 36.79)
Homophily
Tweeter has health focus in profile
No			0.94 (0.77, 1.14)	1.31 (1.11, 1.54)
Yes			6.28 (5.68, 6.95)	1.81 (1.70, 1.93)
Tweeter sends pro-health #childhoodobesity tweets
No			8.72 (4.51, 16.88)	6.52 (0.02, 2669)
Yes			6.40 (4.62, 8.87)	2.29 (0.13, 38.97)
Structural terms
Geometrically weighted outdegree				0.58 (0.000004, 76 230)
Geometrically weighted edge-wise shared partnerships				3.93 (1.11, 13.84)
Geometrically weighted dyad-wise shared partnerships				1.00 (0.97, 1.03)
Fit
Akaike information criterion	33 554	31 008	28 395	23 779
Bayesian information criterion	33 565	31 104	28 534	23 950
Outdegree captured in model simulations, %	7.6	70.3	75.4	96.6

Note. CI = confidence interval; OR = odds ratio.