Cognitive Networks Extract Insights on COVID-19 Vaccines from English and Italian Popular Tweets: Anticipation, Logistics, Conspiracy and Loss of Trust

The Effect of the COVID Pandemic on Clinical Psychology Research: A Bibliometric Analysis

The present bibliometric analysis used traditional measures and network science techniques to examine how the COVID-19 pandemic influenced research in Clinical Psychology. Publication records from the Web of Science (WoS) were obtained for journal articles published prior to (2015 and 2018), during (2020), and at the end of the pandemic (2022) for the search terms "men and mental health" and "women and mental health". Network analyses of author-provided keywords showed that COVID-19 co-occurred with fear, anxiety, depression, and stress for both men and women in 2020. In 2022, COVID-19 co-occurred with topics related to world-wide lockdowns (e.g., alcohol use, substance use, intimate partner violence, loneliness, physical activity), and to more fundamental topics in Clinical Psychology (e.g., eating disorders and post-traumatic stress disorder). Although the COVID pandemic was associated with several changes in the research topics that were examined in Clinical Psychology, pre-existing disparities in the amount of mental health research on men compared to women did not appear to increase (in contrast to increases associated with COVID in pre-existing gender disparities observed in other areas of society).

Emotional profiling and cognitive networks unravel how mainstream and alternative press framed AstraZeneca, Pfizer and COVID-19 vaccination campaigns

COVID-19 vaccines have been largely debated by the press. To understand how mainstream and alternative media debated vaccines, we introduce a paradigm reconstructing time-evolving narrative frames via cognitive networks and natural language processing. We study Italian news articles massively re-shared on Facebook/Twitter (up to 5 million times), covering 5745 vaccine-related news from 17 news outlets over 8 months. We find consistently high trust/anticipation and low disgust in the way mainstream sources framed “vaccine/vaccino”. These emotions were crucially missing in alternative outlets. News titles from alternative sources framed “AstraZeneca” with sadness, absent in mainstream titles. Initially, mainstream news linked mostly “Pfizer” with side effects (e.g. “allergy”, “reaction”, “fever”). With the temporary suspension of “AstraZeneca”, negative associations shifted: Mainstream titles prominently linked “AstraZeneca” with side effects, while “Pfizer” underwent a positive valence shift, linked to its higher efficacy. Simultaneously, thrombosis and fearful conceptual associations entered the frame of vaccines, while death changed context, i.e. rather than hopefully preventing deaths, vaccines could be reported as potential causes of death, increasing fear. Our findings expose crucial aspects of the emotional narratives around COVID-19 vaccines adopted by the press, highlighting the need to understand how alternative and mainstream media report vaccination news.