Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36992293›Full record

ArticleVaccines2023

Modeling Behavior and Vaccine Hesitancy Using Twitter-Derived US Population Sentiment during the COVID-19 Pandemic to Predict Daily Vaccination Inoculations.

Talal Daghriri, Michael Proctor, Sarah Matthews, Abdullateef H Bashiri

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in Vaccines, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Talal DaghririDepartment of Industrial Engineering, Jazan University, Jazan 82822, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-7253-5843
Michael ProctorDepartment of Industrial Engineering & Management Systems, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816, USA.
Sarah MatthewsInterdisciplinary Modeling and Simulation Program, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8372-1185
Abdullateef H BashiriDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Jazan University, Jazan 82822, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The sentiment analysis of social media for predicting behavior during a pandemic is seminal in nature. As an applied contribution, we present sentiment-based regression models for predicting the United States COVID-19 first dose, second dose, and booster daily inoculations from 1 June 2021 to 31 March 2022. The models merge independent variables representing fear of the virus and vaccine hesitancy. Large correlations exceeding 77% and 84% for the first-dose and booster-dose models inspire confidence in the merger of the independent variables. Death count as a traditional measure of fear is a lagging indicator of inoculations, while Twitter-positive and -negative tweets are strong predictors of inoculations. Thus, the use of sentiment analysis for predicting inoculations is strongly supported with administrative events being catalysts for tweets. Non-inclusion in the second-dose regression model of data occurring before the 1 June 2021 timeframe appear to limit the second-dose model results-only achieving a moderate correlation exceeding 53%. Limiting tweet collection to geolocated tweets does not encompass the entire US Twitter population. Nonetheless, results from Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) surveys appear to generally support the regression factors common to the first-dose and booster-dose regression models and their results.

Indexed as

COVID-19 vaccinationdaily vaccine inoculationssentiment analysisTwitter & CDC datasetsvaccine hesitancy

Identifiers

PMID36992293
PMCPMC10051180

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
reference markers read1
measurements read45
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.