Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35229075›Full record

ArticleJMIR infodemiology

Partisan Differences in Legislators' Discussion of Vaccination on Twitter During the COVID-19 Era: Natural Language Processing Analysis.

Eden Engel-Rebitzer, Daniel C Stokes, Zachary F Meisel, Jonathan Purtle, Rebecca Doyle, Alison M Buttenheim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR infodemiology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors.

Eden Engel-Rebitzer *Perelman School of Medicine University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5013-554X
Daniel C Stokes *Perelman School of Medicine University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9622-2761
Zachary F MeiselCenter for Emergency Care Policy and Research Philadelphia, PA United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8474-7993
Jonathan PurtleDepartment of Public Health Policy and Management School of Global Public Health New York University New York City, NY United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6908-5944
Rebecca DoyleLeonard Davis Institute of Health Economics Philadelphia, PA United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9354-540X
Alison M ButtenheimLeonard Davis Institute of Health Economics Philadelphia, PA United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2432-1637

Funding

Utilization of health services after engagement with opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment provider by individuals with and without post-traumatic stress disorderP30DA040500 · NIDA · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI ZACHARY Franklin MEISEL · 2015 to 2026
$20.7M
NIDA NIH HHS P30 DA040500
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 era has been characterized by the politicization of health-related topics. This is especially concerning given evidence that politicized discussion of vaccination may contribute to vaccine hesitancy. No research, however, has examined the content and politicization of legislator communication with the public about vaccination during the COVID-19 era.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to examine vaccine-related tweets produced by state and federal legislators during the COVID-19 era to (1) describe the content of vaccine-related tweets; (2) examine the differences in vaccine-related tweet content between Democrats and Republicans; and (3) quantify (and describe trends over time in) partisan differences in vaccine-related communication.

methodsWe abstracted all vaccine-related tweets produced by state and federal legislators between February 01, 2020, and December 11, 2020. We used latent Dirichlet allocation to define the tweet topics and used descriptive statistics to describe differences by party in the use of topics and changes in political polarization over time.

resultsWe included 14,519 tweets generated by 1463 state legislators and 521 federal legislators. Republicans were more likely to use words (eg, "record time," "launched," and "innovation") and topics (eg, Operation Warp Speed success) that were focused on the successful development of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Democrats used a broader range of words (eg, "anti-vaxxers," "flu," and "free") and topics (eg, vaccine prioritization, influenza, and antivaxxers) that were more aligned with public health messaging related to the vaccine. Polarization increased over most of the study period.

conclusionsRepublican and Democratic legislators used different language in their Twitter conversations about vaccination during the COVID-19 era, leading to increased political polarization of vaccine-related tweets. These communication patterns have the potential to contribute to vaccine hesitancy.

Indexed as

communicationCOVID-19hesitancylinguisticnatural language processingNLPpartisanshippatternpoliticizationsocial mediaTwittervaccinationvaccine

Identifiers

PMID35229075
PMCPMC8862742

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.