Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35664110›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2022

How the Italian Twitter Conversation on Vaccines Changed During the First Phase of the Pandemic: A Mixed-Method Analysis.

Francesco Gesualdo, Lorenza Parisi, Ileana Croci, Francesca Comunello, Andrea Parente, Luisa Russo, Ilaria Campagna, Barbara Lanfranchi, Maria Cristina Rota, Antonietta Filia and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Francesco GesualdoMultifactorial and Complex Diseases Research Area, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Lorenza ParisiDepartment of Human Sciences, Link Campus University, Rome, Italy.
Ileana CrociMultifactorial and Complex Diseases Research Area, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Francesca ComunelloDepartment of Communication and Social Research, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Andrea ParenteDepartment of Communication and Social Research, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Luisa RussoMultifactorial and Complex Diseases Research Area, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Ilaria CampagnaMultifactorial and Complex Diseases Research Area, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Barbara LanfranchiMultifactorial and Complex Diseases Research Area, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Maria Cristina RotaDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy.
Antonietta FiliaDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy.
Alberto Eugenio TozziMultifactorial and Complex Diseases Research Area, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Caterina RizzoClinical Pathways and Epidemiology Unit, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital · ITIstituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · ITIstituto Superiore di Sanità · ITSapienza University of Rome · ITLink Campus University · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the context of the European Joint Action on Vaccination, we analyzed, through quantitative and qualitative methods, a random sample of vaccine-related tweets published in Italy between November 2019 and June 2020, with the aim of understanding how the Twitter conversation on vaccines changed during the first phase of the pandemic, compared to the pre-pandemic months. Tweets were analyzed by a multidisciplinary team in terms of kind of vaccine, vaccine stance, tone of voice, population target, mentioned source of information. Multiple correspondence analysis was used to identify variables associated with vaccine stance. We analyzed 2,473 tweets. 58.2% mentioned the COVID-19 vaccine. Most had a discouraging stance (38.1%), followed by promotional (32.5%), neutral (22%) and ambiguous (2.5%). The discouraging stance was the most represented before the pandemic (69.6%). In February and March 2020, discouraging tweets decreased intensely and promotional and neutral tweets dominated the conversation. Between April and June 2020, promotional tweets remained more represented (36.5%), followed by discouraging (30%) and neutral (24.3%). The tweets' tone of voice was mainly polemical/complaining, both for promotional and for discouraging tweets. The multiple correspondence analysis identified a definite profile for discouraging and neutral tweets, compared to promotional and ambiguous tweets. In conclusion, the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 caused a deep change in the vaccination discourse on Twitter in Italy, with an increase of promotional and ambiguous tweets. Systematic monitoring of Twitter and other social media, ideally combined with traditional surveys, would enable us to better understand Italian vaccine hesitancy and plan tailored, data-based communication strategies.

Indexed as

COVID-19Social MediaVaccinesCommunicationCOVID-19 VaccinesHumansPandemicsSARS-CoV-2COVID-19 VaccinesVaccinescommunicationCOVID-19social mediaTwittervaccine hesitancyvaccines

Identifiers

PMID35664110
PMCPMC9157769
OpenAlexW4280573013

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.