ArticleBMC public health2024
Dissonance between posts of health agencies and public comments regarding COVID-19 and vaccination on Facebook in Northern California.
Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPublic health crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, have prompted a need for health agencies to improve their disease preparedness strategies, informing their communities of new information and promoting preventive behaviors to help curb the spread of the virus.
methodsWe ran unsupervised machine learning and emotion analysis, validated with manual coding, on posts of health agencies (N = 1588) and their associated public comments (N = 7813) during a crucial initial period of the COVID-19 pandemic (January 2020 to February 2021) among nine different counties with a higher proportion of vaccine-hesitant communities in Northern California. In addition, we explored differences in concerns and expressed emotions by two key group-level factors, county-level COVID-19 death rate and political party affiliation.
resultsWe consistently find that while health agencies primarily disseminated information about COVID-19 and the vaccine, they failed to address the concerns of their communities as expressed in public comment sections. Topics among public audiences focused on concerns with the COVID-19 vaccine safety and rollout, state mandates, flu vaccination, and frustration with politicians, and they expressed more positive and more negative emotions than health agencies. Further, there were several differences in primary topics and emotions expressed among public audiences by county-level COVID-19 death rate and political party affiliation.
conclusionWhile this research serves as a case study, findings indicate how local health agencies, and their audiences, discuss their perceptions and concerns regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and may inform health communication researchers and practitioners on how to prepare and manage for emerging health crises.
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.