SynthesisBMC public health2026
Social media-based interventions for improving vaccine uptake, reducing hesitancy, and combating misinformation: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of RCT.
Synthesis in BMC public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital Strategies To Counter Health Misinformation and Strengthen Vaccine Acceptance: a Scoping Review.Journal of community health · 2026Review
- Vaccine hesitancy and refusal: perspectives of midwives working in family health centers - a descriptive cross-sectional study.Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P · 2026Article
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
backgroundThe widespread use of social media plays a complex role in vaccination efforts. While it can spread misinformation that causes people to hesitate, it also provides a valuable platform for promoting accurate health information. This study systematically reviewed how strategies used on social media can help reduce false beliefs, encourage more people to get vaccinated, and support positive mental health outcomes.
methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating social media–based interventions aimed at increasing vaccination uptake, reducing vaccine hesitancy, or correcting vaccine-related misinformation, from inception through June 2025. Studies were eligible if they involved human participants, employed a randomized controlled design, and assessed vaccination-related outcomes. Non-randomized studies, conference abstracts, protocols, reviews, and studies not published in English were excluded. We used the Cochrane ROB-2 tool to figure out how likely it was that there was bias. We used random-effects models to find the pooled risk ratios (RR) and standardized mean differences (SMD). We also looked into heterogeneity by doing subgroup and meta-regression analyses.
resultsThere were a total of 28 RCTs. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of people who got vaccinated between social media-based interventions and control conditions (RR = 1.04; 95% CI: 0.96 to 1.14; I² = 66.2%). But these interventions always made small but statistically significant changes in positive factors like attitudes, knowledge, intention, and confidence (SMD = 0.21; 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.34; I² = 88.0%). They also made people less hesitant, resistant, delayed, and wrong about vaccines (RR = 0.27; 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.38; I² = 56.5%). The follow-up period didn’t change the results much, but subgroup analyses showed that the results were less consistent when things like country, platform, and length of the intervention were taken into account. The publication didn’t show any signs of bias.
conclusionsIn conclusion, social media–based health promotion interventions are effective in enhancing vaccine-related knowledge and attitudes, and in reducing hesitancy, resistance, delays, and misinformation; however, their effect on actual vaccination uptake was not statistically significant, highlighting the need for integrated, multi-component strategies to optimize real-world vaccine coverage.
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.