Trial reportThe western journal of emergency medicine2023
Effects of an Online Community Peer-support Intervention on COVID-19 Vaccine Misinformation Among Essential Workers: Mixed-methods Analysis.
Trial report in The western journal of emergency medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Social media-based interventions for improving vaccine uptake, reducing hesitancy, and combating misinformation: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of RCT.BMC public health · 2026Pooled it
- Strategies and prerequisites for combating health misinformation on social media: a systematic review.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Do peer-based education interventions effectively improve vaccination acceptance? a systematic review.BMC public health · 2023Pooled it
- Assessing psychological antecedents of vaccination in family health center visitors.Primary health care research & development · 2026Article
- COVID-19 Vaccination Knowledge, Attitudes, Perception, and Practices Among Frontline Healthcare Workers in Tunisia, 2024.Vaccines · 2026Article
- Online Interventions Addressing Health Misinformation: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Article
- A Comprehensive Analysis of COVID-19 Misinformation, Public Health Impacts, and Communication Strategies: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Communication inequalities and incomplete data hinder understanding of how social media affect vaccine uptake.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2024Article
- "It spreads like wildfire": mothers' gatherings for vaccine acceptance.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPublic health efforts to reduce the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been plagued by vaccine hesitancy and misinformation. Social media has contributed to spreading misinformation by creating online environments where people find information or opinions that reinforce their own. Combating misinformation online will be essential to prevent and manage the spread of COVID-19. It is of particular urgency to understand and address misinformation and vaccine hesitancy among essential workers, such as healthcare workers, because of their frequent interactions with and influence upon the general population. Using data from an online community pilot randomized controlled trial designed to increase requests for COVID-19 vaccine information among frontline essential workers, we explored the topics discussed on the online community related to COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccination to better understand current misinformation and vaccine hesitancy.
methodsFor the trial, 120 participants and 12 peer leaders were recruited through online advertisements to join a private, hidden Facebook group. The study consisted of an intervention and control arm, each with two groups of 30 randomized participants each. Peer leaders were only randomized into one of the intervention-arm groups. Peer leaders were tasked with engaging the participants throughout the study. Posts and comments of only participants were coded manually by the research team. Chi-squared tests assessed differences in the frequency and content of posts between intervention and control arms.
resultsWe found significant differences in the numbers of posts and comments focused on topics of general community, misinformation, and social support between intervention and control arms (6.88% vs 19.05% focused on misinformation, respectively, (P <0.001); 11.88% vs 1.90% focused on social support, respectively, (P <0.001); and 46.88% vs 62.86% focused on general community (P <0.001)).
conclusionResults suggest that peer-led online community groups may help to reduce the spread of misinformation and aid public health efforts in our fight against COVID-19.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.