ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2014
Information is in the eye of the beholder: Seeking information on the MMR vaccine through an Internet search engine.
Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Web-Based Antismoking Advertising to Promote Smoking Cessation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2016Trial
- Impact of an influenza information pamphlet on vaccination uptake among Polish pupils in Edinburgh, Scotland and the role of social media in parental decision making.BMC public health · 2020Article
- Can Users Search Trends Predict People Scares or Disease Breakout? An Examination of Infectious Skin Diseases in the United States.Infectious diseases · 2020Article
- Online Health Monitoring using Facebook Advertisement Audience Estimates in the United States: Evaluation Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2018Article
- Vaccine criticism on the Internet: Propositions for future research.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2016Article
- Health and social media: perfect storm of information.Healthcare informatics research · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vaccination campaigns are one of the most important and successful public health programs ever undertaken. People who want to learn about vaccines in order to make an informed decision on whether to vaccinate are faced with a wealth of information on the Internet, both for and against vaccinations. In this paper we develop an automated way to score Internet search queries and web pages as to the likelihood that a person making these queries or reading those pages would decide to vaccinate. We apply this method to data from a major Internet search engine, while people seek information about the Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccine. We show that our method is accurate, and use it to learn about the information acquisition process of people. Our results show that people who are pro-vaccination as well as people who are anti-vaccination seek similar information, but browsing this information has differing effect on their future browsing. These findings demonstrate the need for health authorities to tailor their information according to the current stance of users.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25954435PMC4419998What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.