Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36596215›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2023

Users' Reactions to Announced Vaccines Against COVID-19 Before Marketing in France: Analysis of Twitter Posts.

Alexandre Dupuy-Zini, Bissan Audeh, Christel Gérardin, Catherine Duclos, Amandine Gagneux-Brunon, Cedric Bousquet

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 36% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Alexandre Dupuy-ZiniLaboratoire d'Informatique Médicale et d'Ingénierie des connaissances en e-Santé, LIMICS, Sorbonne Université, Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale, INSERM, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0003-4548-753X
Bissan AudehLaboratoire d'Informatique Médicale et d'Ingénierie des connaissances en e-Santé, LIMICS, Sorbonne Université, Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale, INSERM, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0001-8550-8724
Christel GérardinInstitut Pierre Louis d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique, Département de médecine interne, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0002-9303-6349
Catherine DuclosLaboratoire d'Informatique Médicale et d'Ingénierie des connaissances en e-Santé, LIMICS, Sorbonne Université, Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale, INSERM, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0001-8745-378X
Amandine Gagneux-BrunonGroupe sur l'Immunité des Muqueuses et Agents Pathogènes, Centre International de Recherche en Infectiologie, University of Lyon, Saint Etienne, France.ORCID 0000-0002-0892-2187
Cedric BousquetLaboratoire d'Informatique Médicale et d'Ingénierie des connaissances en e-Santé, LIMICS, Sorbonne Université, Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale, INSERM, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0001-9775-2476
Inserm · FRSorbonne Université · FRUniversité Claude Bernard Lyon 1 · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWithin a few months, the COVID-19 pandemic had spread to many countries and had been a real challenge for health systems all around the world. This unprecedented crisis has led to a surge of online discussions about potential cures for the disease. Among them, vaccines have been at the heart of the debates and have faced lack of confidence before marketing in France.

objectiveThis study aims to identify and investigate the opinions of French Twitter users on the announced vaccines against COVID-19 through sentiment analysis.

methodsThis study was conducted in 2 phases. First, we filtered a collection of tweets related to COVID-19 available on Twitter from February 2020 to August 2020 with a set of keywords associated with vaccine mistrust using word embeddings. Second, we performed sentiment analysis using deep learning to identify the characteristics of vaccine mistrust. The model was trained on a hand-labeled subset of 4548 tweets.

resultsA set of 69 relevant keywords were identified as the semantic concept of the word "vaccin" (vaccine in French) and focused mainly on conspiracies, pharmaceutical companies, and alternative treatments. Those keywords enabled us to extract nearly 350,000 tweets in French. The sentiment analysis model achieved 0.75 accuracy. The model then predicted 16% of positive tweets, 41% of negative tweets, and 43% of neutral tweets. This allowed us to explore the semantic concepts of positive and negative tweets and to plot the trends of each sentiment. The main negative rhetoric identified from users' tweets was that vaccines are perceived as having a political purpose and that COVID-19 is a commercial argument for the pharmaceutical companies.

conclusionsTwitter might be a useful tool to investigate the arguments for vaccine mistrust because it unveils political criticism contrasting with the usual concerns on adverse drug reactions. As the opposition rhetoric is more consistent and more widely spread than the positive rhetoric, we believe that this research provides effective tools to help health authorities better characterize the risk of vaccine mistrust.

Indexed as

COVID-19Social MediaCOVID-19 VaccinesHumansMarketingPandemicsPharmaceutical PreparationsCOVID-19 VaccinesPharmaceutical PreparationsCOVID-19 VaccinesDeep LearningFranceSentiment AnalysisSocial Media

Identifiers

PMID36596215
PMCPMC10132828
OpenAlexW4313451579

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.