ArticleJMIR infodemiology2025
Vaccination Conversations on X in Spanish and Catalan: Qualitative Content Analysis.
Article in JMIR infodemiology, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe analysis of social networks should be considered by institutions and governments alongside surveys and other conventional methods for assessing public attitudes toward vaccines. X (formerly known as Twitter) has emerged as a significant source for studying vaccine hesitancy.
objectiveThe aim of the study is to examine the main arguments and narratives in favor and against vaccination expressed in Spanish- and Catalan-language posts, comments, and opinions on the social media platform X.
methodsSpanish and Catalan posts were collected from X using NodeXL Pro between March and December 2021, resulting in 479,734 posts. For qualitative analysis, a random subsample of 384 tweets was selected using Cochran's formula (95% confidence and ±5% margin of error). A bespoke code frame was developed in collaboration with medical and social media experts, and posts were translated into English. Intercoder reliability, assessed on 20% of the sample, yielded 93.4% agreement and a Cohen κ of 0.92.
resultsA total of 479,734 posts were retrieved from 29,706 users. After an inductive review of the data, six themes were identified, which formed the basis of our code frame: (theme 1) vaccine acquisition and distribution, (theme 2) vaccine skepticism and criticism, (theme 3) provaccination stance, (theme 4) global COVID-19 situation, (theme 5) vaccine politics and international relations, and (theme 6) miscellaneous news and posts. Vaccine skepticism and criticism was the most frequent theme (93/384, 24.2%), whereas vaccine politics and international relations was the least (25/384, 6.5%). We observed that while some posts supported vaccination, others expressed concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy, promoted conspiracy theories, disseminated misinformation, or opposed scientific consensus. Challenges related to vaccine acquisition and distribution within specific countries were also identified, along with political and economic factors, such as the politicization of vaccines, which hindered equitable distribution between vaccine-producing and vaccine-needing countries. Additionally, the pandemic's social impact fostered community support initiatives and solidarity.
conclusionsOur findings can inform measures to promote vaccine acceptance and reinforce trust in health care systems, professionals, and scientific perspectives, thereby improving vaccination coverage. These insights may serve as a foundation for developing sociopolitical strategies to enhance vaccination management and address future pandemics or new vaccination campaigns.
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.