ArticleBMC public health2025
A thematic analysis of UK COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy discussions on Twitter.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- How do mass shootings shape the social media discourse on guns in the US Congress? Causal discovery and topic modeling.PLOS global public health · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFollowing UK approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines on 2/12/20 and 30/12/20 respectively, discussions about them emerged on the social media platform Twitter, (now 'X'). Previous research has shown that Twitter/ X is used by the UK public to engage with public health announcements and that social media influences public opinions of vaccines, including COVID-19 vaccines, globally. This study explored discussions on Twitter posted in response to the UK government's posts introducing the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines. The aim was to investigate vaccine hesitant views, and thereby identify barriers and facilitators to COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the UK.
methodsOnline ethnography was used to collect responses ('tweet replies') to 14 Twitter posts published by officials or departments of the UK government on the dates the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines received approval from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (2/12/20 and 30/12/20, respectively). 16,508 responses were collected and those expressing vaccine hesitancy were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.
resultsThree themes that underpinned Twitter posters' vaccine hesitancy were identified: (1) Concerns about vaccine development and safety, (2) Information, misinformation and disinformation, (3) Distrust: Politics and 'Big Pharma'. From these themes, eight barriers and eight facilitators to UK COVID-19 vaccine uptake were identified.
conclusionThis paper highlights key obstacles to COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in the UK based on views from Twitter and contributes to the emerging literature on the relationship between social media and the public response to COVID-19 vaccines. In so doing, this analysis offers insights that are useful for the development of vaccine communication strategies more broadly, both in and beyond future pandemics, to ensure that public concerns are addressed, and misinformation and disinformation are appropriately countered.
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.