Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33280856›Full record

ArticleVaccine2021

Understanding the messages and motivation of vaccine hesitant or refusing social media influencers.

Amy E Leader, Amelia Burke-Garcia, Philip M Massey, Jill B Roark

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Vaccine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Social Perception, Trust, and Reluctance Towards Vaccines: A Bibliometric Analysis (2019-2025).International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Insights into vaccine hesitancy from systems thinking, Rwanda.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Recurrent respiratory papillomatosis: A 2020 perspective.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2021
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

4 authors.

Amy E LeaderDivision of Population Science, Medical Oncology, Thomas Jefferson University, 834 Chestnut Street, Suite 314, Philadelphia, PA 19107, United States. Electronic address: amy.leader@jefferson.edu.
Amelia Burke-GarciaNORC at the University of Chicago, 4350 East-West Highway, 8th Floor, Bethesda, MD 20814, United States.
Philip M MasseyDepartment of Community Health and Prevention, Drexel Dornsife School of Public Health, 3215 Market St, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States.
Jill B Roark109 Casa Bay Place, St Augustine, FL 32080, United States.

Funding

X-Ray Crystallography and Macromolecular CharacterizationP30CA056036 · NCI · THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY · PI Claudio Guillermo Giraudo · 1995 to 2026
$94.8M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA056036
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile anti-vaccine messages on social media have been studied for content, reach, and effectiveness, less is known about those who create and promote the messages. Online influencers, or 'everyday people who are influential within their online social networks', are viewed as trusted voices who are often making similar life decisions as their followers. Therefore, their experiences with and perspectives on health issues can be persuasive.

methodsWe collaborated with a formal network of online influencers to interview, using a semi-structured interview guide, vaccine hesitant influencer mothers about their views on vaccination; their process for developing health-related social media content; their motivation to promote anti-vaccine messages; and their opinions on current vaccination messaging. Prescreening ensured a diverse sample by race/ethnicity, age, education, number of children, and geographic residence. Interviews occurred by telephone, were audio recorded, and transcribed. Themes were generated independently by two coders using a deductive coding approach.

resultsWe interviewed 15 online influencer mothers from across the U.S. (average age 39 years old; all married; 13 Caucasian, 1 African American, 1 Hispanic). In some capacity, 5 of the 15 wrote about vaccination on their blog. Those who chose not to post anti-vaccine content did so for fear of alienating followers or having their platform be the site of combative discourse among readers. When researching their social media posts, the influencers did not trust mainstream sources of health information and relied on alternative sources and search engines. IMPLICATIONS: This exploratory study interviewed influential mothers who have the ability to spread anti-vaccine messages on social media. While most do not contribute to the anti-vaccine sentiment, understanding the motivation and practices of those that do assists the public health community in better understanding the online vaccination communication environment, leading to more effective messages to counterbalance anti-vaccine content on social media.

Indexed as

Social MediaVaccinesAdultChildComprehensionHumansMotivationVaccinationVaccinesHealth communicationInformation disseminationOnline influencersSocial mediaVaccinationVaccine hesitancy

Identifiers

PMID33280856
PMCPMC8152170

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.