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.
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Health Decisions Under Uncertainty: The Roles of Conspiracy Beliefs and Institutional Trust.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Communication inequalities and incomplete data hinder understanding of how social media affect vaccine uptake.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2024Article
- Anti-Vaccination Attitude and Vaccination Intentions Against Covid-19: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study Investigating the Role of Media Consumption.Clinical neuropsychiatry · 2023Article
- Vaccine Hesitancy and Anti-Vaccination Attitudes during the Start of COVID-19 Vaccination Program: A Content Analysis on Twitter Data.Vaccines · 2022Article
- Exploring public perceptions of the COVID-19 vaccine online from a cultural perspective: Semantic network analysis of two social media platforms in the United States and China.Telematics and informatics · 2021Article
- Using Machine Learning to Compare Provaccine and Antivaccine Discourse Among the Public on Social Media: Algorithm Development Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2021Article
- Review
- Parental Online Information Access and Childhood Vaccination Decisions in North America: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- A Mixed Methods Study Exploring Older Womens' Attitudes Toward Osteoporosis Medications: Adapting a Health Communication Framework.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2020Article
- From a Digital Bottle: A Message to Ourselves in 2039.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Article
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
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
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.