Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33097547›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2020

Social media and vaccine hesitancy.

Steven Lloyd Wilson, Charles Wiysonge

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ global health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06074237 (Improving Vaccine Counseling Skills Among Pediatric, Medicine/Pediatric and Family Medicine Residents Pilot Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 465 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
465citing 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.

NCT06074237 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Improving Vaccine Counseling Skills Among Pediatric, Medicine/Pediatric and Family Medicine Residents Pilot Study: Evaluation, Education, and Promotion of Vaccine Confidence Using Educational Modules and Standardized Patient Encounters

TypeinterventionalSponsorCorewell Health EastRan2024 to 2025Enrolled112ConditionsVaccine Refusal, Vaccine-Preventable Diseases, Physician-Patient RelationsArmsImmersive resident education, Standardized patient (SP) encounter
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

405 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

2 authors.

Steven Lloyd WilsonPolitics, Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA wilson.steven.lloyd@gmail.com.
Charles WiysongeCochrane South Africa, South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa.

Funding

European Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnderstanding the threat posed by anti-vaccination efforts on social media is critically important with the forth coming need for world wide COVID-19 vaccination programs. We globally evaluate the effect of social media and online foreign disinformation campaigns on vaccination rates and attitudes towards vaccine safety.

methodsWeuse a large-n cross-country regression framework to evaluate the effect ofsocial media on vaccine hesitancy globally. To do so, we operationalize social media usage in two dimensions: the use of it by the public to organize action(using Digital Society Project indicators), and the level of negative lyoriented discourse about vaccines on social media (using a data set of all geocoded tweets in the world from 2018-2019). In addition, we measure the level of foreign-sourced coordinated disinformation operations on social media ineach country (using Digital Society Project indicators). The outcome of vaccine hesitancy is measured in two ways. First, we use polls of what proportion ofthe public per country feels vaccines are unsafe (using Wellcome Global Monitor indicators for 137 countries). Second, we use annual data of actual vaccination rates from the WHO for 166 countries.

resultsWe found the use of social media to organise offline action to be highly predictive of the belief that vaccinations are unsafe, with such beliefs mounting as more organisation occurs on social media. In addition, the prevalence of foreign disinformation is highly statistically and substantively significant in predicting a drop in mean vaccination coverage over time. A 1-point shift upwards in the 5-point disinformation scale is associated with a 2-percentage point drop in mean vaccination coverage year over year. We also found support for the connection of foreign disinformation with negative social media activity about vaccination. The substantive effect of foreign disinformation is to increase the number of negative vaccine tweets by 15% for the median country.

conclusionThere is a significant relationship between organisation on social media and public doubts of vaccine safety. In addition, there is a substantial relationship between foreign disinformation campaigns and declining vaccination coverage.

Indexed as

Social MediaBetacoronavirusCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesGlobal HealthHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansPandemicsPneumonia, ViralPublic HealthSARS-CoV-2Vaccination RefusalViral VaccinesCOVID-19 VaccinesViral Vaccinesvaccines

Identifiers

PMID33097547
PMCPMC7590343

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.