Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36560477›Full record

ArticleVaccines2022

Anti-Vaccine Discourse on Social Media: An Exploratory Audit of Negative Tweets about Vaccines and Their Posters.

An Nguyen, Daniel Catalan-Matamoros

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Vaccines, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Whither social media and clinical genetics?American journal of medical genetics. Part A · 2023
    Review
  10. 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

2 authors.

An NguyenCentre for Science, Health and Data Communication Research, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth BH12 5BB, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7074-6807
Daniel Catalan-MatamorosMedialab, Department of Communication and Media Studies, Madrid University Carlos III, 28005 Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-7783-4984

Funding

Study financed through the Agreement signed between the Community of Madrid (Ministry of Education, Universities and Science) and the Madrid University Carlos III for the direct grant to fund the development of research activities on SARS-COV 2 and COVID- NA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As the anti-vaccination movement is spreading around the world, this paper addresses the ever more urgent need for health professionals, communicators and policy-makers to grasp the nature of vaccine mis/disinformation on social media. A one-by-one coding of 4511 vaccine-related tweets posted from the UK in 2019 resulted in 334 anti-vaccine tweets. Our analysis shows that (a) anti-vaccine tweeters are quite active and widely networked users on their own; (b) anti-vaccine messages tend to focus on the "harmful" nature of vaccination, based mostly on personal experience, values and beliefs rather than hard facts; (c) anonymity does not make a difference to the types of posted anti-vaccine content, but does so in terms of the volume of such content. Communication initiatives against anti-vaccination should (a) work closely with technological platforms to tackle anonymous anti-vaccine tweets; (b) focus efforts on mis/disinformation in three major arears (in order of importance): the medical nature of vaccines, the belief that vaccination is a tool of manipulation and control for money and power, and the "freedom of health choice" discourse against mandatory vaccination; and (c) go beyond common factual measures-such as detecting, labelling or removing fake news-to address emotions induced by personal memories, values and beliefs.

Indexed as

anti-scienceanti-vaccinationfake newsmisinformationscience controversyvaccine hesitancy

Identifiers

PMID36560477
PMCPMC9782243

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.