Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31640660›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2019

How organisations promoting vaccination respond to misinformation on social media: a qualitative investigation.

Maryke S Steffens, Adam G Dunn, Kerrie E Wiley, Julie Leask

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

63 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Social Media Use for Health Purposes: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Analysis of the Anti-Vaccine Movement in Social Networks: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Co-Designing a Framework for Social Media Health Communication to Young People: A Participatory Research Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Naive skepticism scale: development and validation tests applied to the chilean population.Psicologia, reflexao e critica : revista semestral do Departamento de Psicologia da UFRGS · 2024
    Article
  14. Enabling Semantic Topic Modeling on Twitter Using MetaMap.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Maryke S SteffensCentre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, 75 Talavera Rd, North Ryde, NSW, 2113, Australia. maryke.steffens@hdr.mq.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4720-3986
Adam G DunnCentre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, 75 Talavera Rd, North Ryde, NSW, 2113, Australia.
Kerrie E WileyThe University of Sydney, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Julie LeaskThe University of Sydney, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

Macquarie University (AU) Macquarie University Research Training Program Scholarship No. 2017438National Health and Medical Research Council APP1128968
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVaccination misinformation is associated with serious public health consequences, such as a decrease in vaccination rates and a risk of disease outbreaks. Although social media offers organisations promoting vaccination unparalleled opportunities to promote evidence and counterbalance misinformation, we know relatively little about their internal workings. The aim of this paper is to explore the strategies, perspectives and experiences of communicators working within such organisations as they promote vaccination and respond to misinformation on social media.

methodsUsing qualitative methods, we purposively sampled 21 participants responsible for routine social media activity and strategy from Australian organisations actively promoting vaccination on social media, including government health departments, local health services, advocacy groups, professional associations and technical/scientific organisations. We conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews to explore their perspectives and practices. Applying Risk Communication principles as a lens, we used Framework Analysis to explore the data both inductively and deductively.

resultsOrganisations promoting vaccination face multiple challenges on social media, including misinformation, anti-science sentiment, a complex vaccination narrative and anti-vaccine activists. They developed a range of sophisticated strategies in response, including communicating with openness in an evidence-informed way; creating safe spaces to encourage audience dialogue; fostering community partnerships; and countering misinformation with care.

conclusionsWe recommend that communicators consider directly countering misinformation because of the potential influence on their silent audience, i.e. those observing but not openly commenting, liking or sharing posts. Refutations should be straightforward, succinct and avoid emphasizing misinformation. Communicators should consider pairing scientific evidence with stories that speak to audience beliefs and values. Finally, organisations could enhance vaccine promotion and their own credibility on social media by forming strong links with organisations sharing similar values and goals.

Indexed as

CommunicationSocial MediaVaccinationAustraliaHumansOrganizationsQualitative ResearchAnti-vaccination movementHealth communicationHealth promotionImmunisationMisinformationPublic healthQualitative methodsSocial mediaVaccination

Identifiers

PMID31640660
PMCPMC6806569

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.