ArticleBMC public health2016
Comparing the quality of pro- and anti-vaccination online information: a content analysis of vaccination-related webpages.
Article in BMC public health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the relationship between moral values and vaccine hesitancy in Great Britain during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional survey.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2022Article
- LOCO: The 88-million-word language of conspiracy corpus.Behavior research methods · 2022Article
- Vaccine misinformation on social media - topic-based content and sentiment analysis of Polish vaccine-deniers' comments on Facebook.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2021Article
- Vaccine Information Seeking Behavior Among Pregnant Women in Khartoum State, Sudan: A Hospital-Based Cross-Sectional Study.Frontiers in public health · 2021Article
- Using text mining and sentiment analysis to analyse YouTube Italian videos concerning vaccination.BMC public health · 2020Article
- Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behaviors of Parents towards Recommended Adult Vaccinations: An Explanatory Survey in the Geographic Area of Naples, Italy.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- Where else would I look for it? A five-country qualitative study on purposes, strategies, and consequences of online health information seeking.Journal of public health research · 2019Article
- Investigating Italian parents' vaccine hesitancy: A cross-sectional survey.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2018Article
- A qualitative analysis of the beliefs of Japanese anti-influenza vaccination website authors.Heliyon · 2018Article
- A readability comparison of anti- versus pro-influenza vaccination online messages in Japan.Preventive medicine reports · 2017Article
- An audit of the quality of online immunisation information available to Australian parents.BMC public health · 2017Article
- Manipulating Google's Knowledge Graph Box to Counter Biased Information Processing During an Online Search on Vaccination: Application of a Technological Debiasing Strategy.Journal of medical Internet research · 2016Article
- The old and the new: vaccine hesitancy in the era of the Web 2.0. Challenges and opportunities.Journal of preventive medicine and hygiene · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe exponential increase in health-related online platforms has made the Internet one of the main sources of health information globally. The quality of health contents disseminated on the Internet has been a central focus for many researchers. To date, however, few comparative content analyses of pro- and anti-vaccination websites have been conducted, and none of them compared the quality of information. The main objective of this study was therefore to bring new evidence on this aspect by comparing the quality of pro- and anti-vaccination online sources.
methodsBased on past literature and health information quality evaluation initiatives, a 40-categories assessment tool (Online Vaccination Information Quality Codebook) was developed and used to code a sample of 1093 webpages retrieved via Google and two filtered versions of the same search engine. The categories investigated were grouped into four main quality dimensions: web-related design quality criteria (10 categories), health-specific design quality criteria (3 categories), health related content attributes (12 categories) and vaccination-specific content attributes (15 categories). Data analysis comprised frequency counts, cross tabulations, Pearson's chi-square, and other inferential indicators.
resultsThe final sample included 514 webpages in favor of vaccination, 471 against, and 108 neutral. Generally, webpages holding a favorable view toward vaccination presented more quality indicators compared to both neutral and anti-vaccination pages. However, some notable exceptions to this rule were observed. In particular, no differences were found between pro- and anti-vaccination webpages as regards vaccination-specific content attributes.
conclusionsOur analyses showed that the overall quality of pro-vaccination webpages is superior to anti-vaccination online sources. The developed coding scheme was proven to be a helpful and reliable tool to judge the quality of vaccination-related webpages. Based on the results, we advance recommendations for online health information providers as well as directions for future research in this field.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.