Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37681141›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2023

Identifying drivers of COVID-19 vaccine sentiments for effective vaccination policy.

Fahim Sufi, Musleh Alsulami

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Fahim SufiSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 553 St. Kilda Rd., Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
Musleh AlsulamiInformation Systems Department, Umm Al-Qura University (UQU), Makkah, Saudi Arabia.
Monash University · AUUmm al-Qura University · SA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has had far-reaching consequences globally, including a significant loss of lives, escalating unemployment rates, economic instability, deteriorating mental well-being, social conflicts, and even political discord. Vaccination, recognized as a pivotal measure in mitigating the adverse effects of COVID-19, has evoked a diverse range of sentiments worldwide. In particular, numerous users on social media platforms have expressed concerns regarding vaccine availability and potential side effects. Therefore, it is imperative for governmental authorities and senior health policy strategists to gain insights into the public's perspectives on vaccine mandates in order to effectively implement their vaccination initiatives. Despite the critical importance of comprehending the underlying factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine sentiment, the existing literature offers limited research studies on this subject matter. This paper presents an innovative methodology that harnesses Twitter data to extract sentiment pertaining to COVID-19 vaccination through the utilization of Artificial Intelligence techniques such as sentiment analysis, entity detection, linear regression, and logistic regression. The proposed methodology was applied and tested on live Twitter feeds containing COVID-19 vaccine-related tweets, spanning from February 14, 2021, to April 2, 2023. Notably, this approach successfully processed tweets in 45 languages originating from over 100 countries, enabling users to select from an extensive scenario space of approximately 3.55 × 10

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceCOVID-19 vaccine sentimentDecision support systemEntity detectionRegression analysisSentiment analysis

Identifiers

PMID37681141
PMCPMC10481186
OpenAlexW4386003100

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.