ArticleJMIR public health and surveillance2018
User-Driven Comments on a Facebook Advertisement Recruiting Canadian Parents in a Study on Immunization: Content Analysis.
Article in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Analysis of the Anti-Vaccine Movement in Social Networks: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Pooled it
- Systematic Literature Review on the Spread of Health-related Misinformation on Social Media.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2019Pooled it
- The Role of Influencers and Echo Chambers in the Diffusion of Vaccine Misinformation: Opinion Mining in a Taiwanese Online Community.JMIR infodemiology · 2025Article
- Article
- The impact of information sources on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and resistance in sub-Saharan Africa.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Cross-platform spread: vaccine-related content, sources, and conspiracy theories in YouTube videos shared in early Twitter COVID-19 conversations.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2022Article
- Patterns and influencing factors of COVID-19 vaccination willingness among college students in China.Vaccine · 2022Article
- Anti-vaccination movements in the world and in Brazil.Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical · 2022Article
- Using Machine Learning-Based Approaches for the Detection and Classification of Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Misinformation: Infodemiology Study of Reddit Discussions.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and attitudes in Qatar: A national cross-sectional survey of a migrant-majority population.Influenza and other respiratory viruses · 2021Article
- Methods for Social Media Monitoring Related to Vaccination: Systematic Scoping Review.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2021Article
- Unfolding the Determinants of COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance in China.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- A Noise Based Medical Elites Silence Model and Public Health Opinion Distortion in Social Networks.Frontiers in public health · 2021Article
- Rhetorical Appeals and Tactics in New York Times Comments About Vaccines: Qualitative Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Article
- Social media and vaccine hesitancy: new updates for the era of COVID-19 and globalized infectious diseases.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2020Review
- Parental Online Information Access and Childhood Vaccination Decisions in North America: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Web-Based Perspectives of Deemed Consent Organ Donation Legislation in Nova Scotia: Thematic Analysis of Commentary in Facebook Groups.JMIR infodemiologyArticle
- Sociocrinology: Impact of Social Media on Endocrine Health - A Review.Indian journal of endocrinology and metabolismReview
- Media Data and Vaccine Hesitancy: Scoping Review.JMIR infodemiologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMore people are searching for immunization information online and potentially being exposed to misinformation and antivaccination sentiment in content and discussions on social media platforms. As vaccination coverage rates remain suboptimal in several developed countries, and outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases become more prevalent, it is important that we build on previous research by analyzing themes in online vaccination discussions, including those that individuals may see without actively searching for information on immunization.
objectiveThe study aimed to explore the sentiments and themes behind an unsolicited debate on immunization in order to better inform public health interventions countering antivaccination sentiment.
methodsWe analyzed and quantified 117 user-driven open-ended comments on immunization posted in the Comments section of a Facebook advertisement that targeted Canadian parents for recruitment into a larger study on immunization. Then, 2 raters coded all comments using content analysis.
resultsOf 117 comments, 85 were posted by unique commentators, with most being female (65/85, 77%). The largest proportion of the immunization comments were positive (51/117, 43.6%), followed by negative (41/117, 35.0%), ambiguous (20/117, 17.1%), and hesitant (5/117, 4.3%). Inaccurate knowledge (27/130, 20.8%) and misperceptions of risk (23/130, 17.7%) were most prevalent in the 130 nonpositive comments. Other claims included distrust of pharmaceutical companies or government agencies (18/130, 13.8%), distrust of the health care system or providers (15/130, 11.5%), past negative experiences with vaccination or beliefs (10/130, 7.7%), and attitudes about health and prevention (10/130, 7.7%). Almost 40% (29/74, 39%) of the positive comments communicated the risks of not vaccinating, followed by judgments on the knowledge level of nonvaccinators (13/74, 18%). A total of 10 positive comments (10/74, 14%) specifically refuted the link between autism and vaccination.
conclusionsThe presence of more than 100 unsolicited user-driven comments on a platform not intended for discussion, nor providing any information on immunization, illustrates the strong sentiments associated with immunization and the arbitrariness of the online platforms used for immunization debates. Health authorities should be more proactive in finding mechanisms to refute misinformation and misperceptions that are propagating uncontested online. Online debates and communications on immunization need to be identified by continuous monitoring in order for health authorities to understand the current themes and trends, and to engage in the discussion.
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.