Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30596265›Full record

Trial reportHealth education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education2019

Social Media Vaccine Websites: A Comparative Analysis of Public and Moderated Websites.

Jo Ann Shoup, Komal J Narwaney, Nicole M Wagner, Courtney R Kraus, Kathy S Gleason, Karen Albright, Jason M Glanz

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. From a Digital Bottle: A Message to Ourselves in 2039.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019
    Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Jo Ann Shoup1 Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Denver, CO, USA.
Komal J Narwaney1 Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Denver, CO, USA.
Nicole M Wagner1 Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Denver, CO, USA.
Courtney R Kraus1 Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Denver, CO, USA.
Kathy S Gleason1 Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Denver, CO, USA.
Karen Albright2 University of Denver, Denver, CO, USA.
Jason M Glanz1 Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Denver, CO, USA.

Funding

AHRQ HHS R01 HS021492
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The internet is an important source of vaccine information for parents. We evaluated and compared the interactive content on an expert moderated vaccine social media (VSM) website developed for parents of children 24 months of age or younger and enrolled in a health care system to a random sample of interactions extracted from publicly available parenting and vaccine-focused blogs and discussion forums. The study observation period was September 2013 through July 2016. Three hundred sixty-seven eligible websites were located using search terms related to vaccines. Seventy-nine samples of interactions about vaccines on public blogs and discussion boards and 61 interactions from the expert moderated VSM website were coded for tone, vaccine stance, and accuracy of information. If information was inaccurate, it was coded as corrected, partially corrected or uncorrected. Using chi-square or Fisher's exact tests, we compared coded interactions from the VSM website with coded interactions from the sample of publicly available websites. We then identified representative quotes to illustrate the quantitative results. Tone, vaccine stance, and accuracy of information were significantly different (all p < .05). Publicly available vaccine websites tended to be more contentious and have a negative stance toward vaccines. These websites also had inaccurate and uncorrected information. In contrast, the expert moderated website had a more civil tone, minimal posting of inaccurate information, with very little participant-to-participant interaction. An expert moderated, interactive vaccine website appears to provide a platform for parents to gather accurate vaccine information, express their vaccine concerns and ask questions of vaccine experts.

Indexed as

Consumer Health InformationSocial MediaAdultColoradoDecision MakingFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMaleParentsVaccinationaccuracy of informationmoderated websitesvaccine hesitancyvaccine social media websites

Identifiers

PMID30596265
PMCPMC7641064

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.