Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35671409›Full record

Observational studyJournal of medical Internet research2022

COVID-19 Vaccine Fact-Checking Posts on Facebook: Observational Study.

Haoning Xue, Xuanjun Gong, Hannah Stevens

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of medical Internet research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

3 authors.

Haoning XueDepartment of Communication, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3756-6385
Xuanjun GongDepartment of Communication, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-9642-8885
Hannah StevensDepartment of Communication, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2940-5066

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEffective interventions aimed at correcting COVID-19 vaccine misinformation, known as fact-checking messages, are needed to combat the mounting antivaccine infodemic and alleviate vaccine hesitancy.

objectiveThis work investigates (1) the changes in the public's attitude toward COVID-19 vaccines over time, (2) the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccine fact-checking information on social media engagement and attitude change, and (3) the emotional and linguistic features of the COVID-19 vaccine fact-checking information ecosystem.

methodsWe collected a data set of 12,553 COVID-19 vaccine fact-checking Facebook posts and their associated comments (N=122,362) from January 2020 to March 2022 and conducted a series of natural language processing and statistical analyses to investigate trends in public attitude toward the vaccine in COVID-19 vaccine fact-checking posts and comments, and emotional and linguistic features of the COVID-19 fact-checking information ecosystem.

resultsThe percentage of fact-checking posts relative to all COVID-19 vaccine posts peaked in May 2020 and then steadily decreased as the pandemic progressed (r=-0.92, df=21, t=-10.94, 95% CI -0.97 to -0.82, P<.001). The salience of COVID-19 vaccine entities was significantly lower in comments (mean 0.03, SD 0.03, t=39.28, P<.001) than in posts (mean 0.09, SD 0.11). Third-party fact checkers have been playing a more important role in more fact-checking over time (r=0.63, df=25, t=4.06, 95% CI 0.33-0.82, P<.001). COVID-19 vaccine fact-checking posts continued to be more analytical (r=0.81, df=25, t=6.88, 95% CI 0.62-0.91, P<.001) and more confident (r=0.59, df=25, t=3.68, 95% CI 0.27-0.79, P=.001) over time. Although comments did not exhibit a significant increase in confidence over time, tentativeness in comments significantly decreased (r=-0.62, df=25, t=-3.94, 95% CI -0.81 to -0.31, P=.001). In addition, although hospitals receive less engagement than other information sources, the comments expressed more positive attitudinal valence in comments compared to other information sources (b=0.06, 95% CI 0.00-0.12, t=2.03, P=.04).

conclusionsThe percentage of fact-checking posts relative to all posts about the vaccine steadily decreased after May 2020. As the pandemic progressed, third-party fact checkers played a larger role in posting fact-checking COVID-19 vaccine posts. COVID-19 vaccine fact-checking posts continued to be more analytical and more confident over time, reflecting increased confidence in posts. Similarly, tentativeness in comments decreased; this likewise suggests that public uncertainty diminished over time. COVID-19 fact-checking vaccine posts from hospitals yielded more positive attitudes toward vaccination than other information sources. At the same time, hospitals received less engagement than other information sources. This suggests that hospitals should invest more in generating engaging public health campaigns on social media.

Indexed as

COVID-19Social MediaCOVID-19 VaccinesEcosystemHumansSARS-CoV-2COVID-19 VaccinesCOVID-19COVID-19 vaccinefact checkinghealth informationinfodemicmisinformationmisinformation correctiononline informationpublic sentimentsentiment analysissocial mediavaccination

Identifiers

PMID35671409
PMCPMC9217154

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.