ArticlePloS one2024
Exploring vaccine hesitancy in digital public discourse: From tribal polarization to socio-economic disparities.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Vaccination Conversations on X in Spanish and Catalan: Qualitative Content Analysis.JMIR infodemiology · 2025Article
- Childhood Immunization Gaps in New York State After COVID-19: A Focus on Regional Disparities.Cureus · 2025Article
- Exploring Topics, Emotions, and Sentiments in Health Organization Posts and Public Responses on Instagram: Content Analysis.JMIR infodemiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study analyzed online public discourse on Twitter (later rebranded as X) during the COVID-19 pandemic to understand key factors associated with vaccine hesitancy by employing deep-learning techniques. Text classification analysis reveals a significant association between attitudes toward vaccination and the unique socio-economic characteristics of US states, such as education, race, income or voting behavior. However, our results indicate that attributing vaccine hesitancy solely to a single social factor is not appropriate. Furthermore, the topic modeling of online discourse identifies two distinct sets of justifications for vaccine hesitancy. The first set pertains to political concerns, including constitutional rights and conspiracy theories. The second pertains to medical concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy. However, vaccine-hesitant social media users pragmatically use broad categories of justification for their beliefs. This behavior may suggest that vaccine hesitancy is influenced by political beliefs, unconscious emotions, and gut-level instinct. Our findings have further implications for the critical role of trust in public institutions in shaping attitudes toward vaccination and the need for tailored communication strategies to restore faith in marginalized communities.
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.