Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36338548›Full record

ArticleJMIR infodemiology

Investigating COVID-19 Vaccine Communication and Misinformation on TikTok: Cross-sectional Study.

Katherine van Kampen, Jeremi Laski, Gabrielle Herman, Teresa M Chan

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 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Supporters and Skeptics: LLM-based Analysis of Engagement with Mental Health (Mis)Information Content on Video-sharing Platforms.Proceedings of the ... International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. TikTok in Plastic Surgery: A Systematic Review of Its Uses.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2023
    Review
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.

Katherine van Kampen *Michael G DeGroote School of Medicine Faculty of Health Sciences McMaster University Hamilton, ON Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7415-3243
Jeremi Laski *College of Medicine Central Michigan University Mount Pleasant, MI United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9737-8293
Gabrielle HermanMichael G DeGroote School of Medicine Faculty of Health Sciences McMaster University Hamilton, ON Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4695-5251
Teresa M ChanDivision of Emergency Medicine, Department of Medicine Faculty of Health Sciences McMaster University Hamilton, ON Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6104-462X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for reliable information, especially around vaccines. Vaccine hesitancy is a growing concern and a great threat to broader public health. The prevalence of social media within our daily lives emphasizes the importance of accurately analyzing how health information is being disseminated to the public. TikTok is of particular interest, as it is an emerging social media platform that young adults may be increasingly using to access health information. Objective: The objective of this study was to examine and describe the content within the top 100 TikToks trending with the hashtag #covidvaccine. Methods: The top 250 most viewed TikToks with the hashtag #covidvaccine were batch downloaded on July 1, 2021, with their respective metadata. Each TikTok was subsequently viewed and encoded by 2 independent reviewers. Coding continued until 100 TikToks could be included based on language and content. Descriptive features were recorded including health care professional (HCP) status of creator, verification of HCP status, genre, and misinformation addressed. Primary inclusion criteria were any TikToks in English with discussion of a COVID-19 vaccine. Results: Of 102 videos included, the median number of plays was 1,700,000, with median shares of 9224 and 62,200 followers. Upon analysis, 14.7% (15/102) of TikToks included HCPs, of which 80% (12/102) could be verified via social media or regulatory body search; 100% (15/15) of HCP-created TikToks supported vaccine use, and overall, 81.3% (83/102) of all TikToks (created by either a layperson or an HCP) supported vaccine use. Conclusions: As the pandemic continues, vaccine hesitancy poses a threat to lifting restrictions, and discovering reasons for this hesitancy is important to public health measures. This study summarizes the discourse around vaccine use on TikTok. Importantly, it opens a frank discussion about the necessity to incorporate new social media platforms into medical education, so we might ensure our trainees are ready to engage with patients on novel platforms.

Indexed as

content analysisCOVID-19COVID-19 vaccineshealth informationInfodemiologymisinformationpublic healthsocial mediaTikTokvaccinationsvaccine hesitancyweb-based health information

Identifiers

PMID36338548
PMCPMC9620417

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.