Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35816685›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2022

Misinformation About COVID-19 Vaccines on Social Media: Rapid Review.

Ingjerd Skafle, Anders Nordahl-Hansen, Daniel S Quintana, Rolf Wynn, Elia Gabarron

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 148 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
148citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
117.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

148 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 315 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Interventions for COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

88 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Ingjerd SkafleFaculty of Health, Welfare, and Organisation, Østfold University College, Halden, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-0313-973X
Anders Nordahl-HansenDepartment of Education, ICT, and Learning, Østfold University College, Halden, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-6411-3122
Daniel S QuintanaDepartment of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-2876-0004
Rolf WynnDepartment of Clinical Medicine, The Artic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-2254-3343
Elia GabarronDepartment of Education, ICT, and Learning, Østfold University College, Halden, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-7188-550X
University Hospital of North Norway · NOOslo University Hospital · NOØstfold University College · NOUniversity of Oslo · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe development of COVID-19 vaccines has been crucial in fighting the pandemic. However, misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccines is spread on social media platforms at a rate that has made the World Health Organization coin the phrase infodemic. False claims about adverse vaccine side effects, such as vaccines being the cause of autism, were already considered a threat to global health before the outbreak of COVID-19.

objectiveWe aimed to synthesize the existing research on misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines spread on social media platforms and its effects. The secondary aim was to gain insight and gather knowledge about whether misinformation about autism and COVID-19 vaccines is being spread on social media platforms.

methodsWe performed a literature search on September 9, 2021, and searched PubMed, PsycINFO, ERIC, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register. We included publications in peer-reviewed journals that fulfilled the following criteria: original empirical studies, studies that assessed social media and misinformation, and studies about COVID-19 vaccines. Thematic analysis was used to identify the patterns (themes) of misinformation. Narrative qualitative synthesis was undertaken with the guidance of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 Statement and the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis reporting guideline. The risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool. Ratings of the certainty of evidence were based on recommendations from the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group.

resultsThe search yielded 757 records, with 45 articles selected for this review. We identified 3 main themes of misinformation: medical misinformation, vaccine development, and conspiracies. Twitter was the most studied social media platform, followed by Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram. A vast majority of studies were from industrialized Western countries. We identified 19 studies in which the effect of social media misinformation on vaccine hesitancy was measured or discussed. These studies implied that the misinformation spread on social media had a negative effect on vaccine hesitancy and uptake. Only 1 study contained misinformation about autism as a side effect of COVID-19 vaccines.

conclusionsTo prevent these misconceptions from taking hold, health authorities should openly address and discuss these false claims with both cultural and religious awareness in mind. Our review showed that there is a need to examine the effect of social media misinformation on vaccine hesitancy with a more robust experimental design. Furthermore, this review also demonstrated that more studies are needed from the Global South and on social media platforms other than the major platforms such as Twitter and Facebook.

trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42021277524; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021277524. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.31219/osf.io/tyevj.

Indexed as

COVID-19Social MediaVaccinesCommunicationCOVID-19 VaccinesHumansPandemicsCOVID-19 VaccinesVaccinesautism spectrum disorderCOVID-19 vaccinesmisinformationsocial mediavaccination hesitancy

Identifiers

PMID35816685
PMCPMC9359307
OpenAlexW4285048163

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.