Development of a Codebook of Online Anti-Vaccination Rhetoric to Manage COVID-19 Vaccine Misinformation

"This was never about a virus": Perceptions of Vaccination Hazards and Pandemic Risk in #Covid19NZ Tweets

In this paper, we draw on qualitative methods from the medical humanities and quantitative approaches from corpus linguistics to assess the different mappings of pandemic risks by Twitter (X) users employing the #Covid19nz hashtag. We look specifically at their responses to government measures around vaccines between August and November 2021. Risk, we reveal, was a major discursive thread in tweets during this period, but within our tweets, it was the vaccine rather than the virus around which hazard perception and response were grouped. We find that the discursive stance of those opposed to the vaccine evoked entangled medical and political hazards, untrustworthy experts, obscure information, restrictions on sovereignty, threats to children, and uncertain future dangers, all of which positioned them within what Ulrich Beck termed the world risk society. We also found that these narratives of risk manifested in specific Twitter styles, which employed a consistently larger number of hashtags. The lack of conjunctions between the hashtags, we argue, encouraged a disordered reading of doubt and precaution, as the hashtags presented triggering phrases whose interconnections were hinted at rather than specified. By contrast, those who tweeted in support of government measures were rhetorically led by solutions rather than risks, with one exception: their perception of those who were vaccine opposed. We use scholarship on risk and precautionary logic to map out the contrasting positions in tweets addressing Aotearoa New Zealand's pandemic experience during the closing months of 2021.

"Do not inject our babies": a social listening analysis of public opinion about authorizing pediatric COVID-19 vaccines

Designing effective childhood vaccination counseling guidelines, public health campaigns, and school-entry mandates requires a nuanced understanding of the information ecology in which parents make vaccination decisions. However, evidence is lacking on how best to "catch the signal" about the public's attitudes, beliefs, and misperceptions. In this study, we characterize public sentiment and discourse about vaccinating children against SARS-CoV-2 with mRNA vaccines to identify prevalent concerns about the vaccine and to understand anti-vaccine rhetorical strategies. We applied computational topic modeling to 149 897 comments submitted to regulations.gov in October 2021 and February 2022 regarding the Food and Drug Administration's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee's emergency use authorization of the COVID-19 vaccines for children. We used a latent Dirichlet allocation topic modeling algorithm to generate topics and then used iterative thematic and discursive analysis to identify relevant domains, themes, and rhetorical strategies. Three domains emerged: (1) specific concerns about the COVID-19 vaccines; (2) foundational beliefs shaping vaccine attitudes; and (3) rhetorical strategies deployed in anti-vaccine arguments. Computational social listening approaches can contribute to misinformation surveillance and evidence-based guidelines for vaccine counseling and public health promotion campaigns.

Annual Research Review: Mapping the multifaceted approaches and impacts of adverse childhood experiences - an umbrella review of meta-analyses

Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) significantly impact lifelong health and well-being. Despite extensive research, a comprehensive understanding of ACEs' multifaceted impacts continues to be challenging to achieve. This study synthesizes meta-analytic evidence to provide a comprehensive view of ACEs' effects, addressing various approaches to conceptualizing ACEs and their diverse outcomes. Employing an umbrella synthesis methodology, this review integrated findings from 99 meta-analyses involving 592 effect sizes. We examined ACEs through specificity, lumping, dimensional, and child maltreatment-centric approaches, assessing their impact across six domains: biological system dysregulation, neuropsychological impairments, physical health complications, mental health conditions, social and behavioral challenges, and criminal justice involvement. The findings reveal a small to moderate overall effect size of ACEs across outcome domains. Specific ACE approaches exhibited varying impact levels, with notable differences in effects on mental health, social/behavioral issues, and criminal justice involvement. When ACEs were aggregated without distinguishing between different types, but with consideration of their cumulative effects, adverse outcomes were significantly exacerbated. The child maltreatment-centric approach consistently demonstrated substantial effects across all evaluated domains. This review underscores the heterogeneity in ACEs' impacts, influenced by the type of ACE and specific outcomes considered. It highlights the necessity for comprehensive approaches to understanding, preventing, and mitigating the effects of ACEs. These insights are vital for developing targeted interventions and informing policy-making, emphasizing the complexity and varied nature of ACEs' influence on individual development and societal well-being.

Management of infodemics in outbreaks or health crises: a systematic review

Introduction

The World Health Organization (WHO) defined an infodemic as an overabundance of information, accurate or not, in the digital and physical space, accompanying an acute health event such as an outbreak or epidemic. It can impact people's risk perceptions, trust, and confidence in the health system, and health workers. As an immediate response, the WHO developed the infodemic management (IM) frameworks, research agenda, intervention frameworks, competencies, and processes for reference by health authorities.

Objective

This systematic review explored the response to and during acute health events by health authorities and other organizations operating in health. It also assessed the effectiveness of the current interventions.

Methods

On 26 June 2023, an online database search included Medline (Ovid), Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Epistemonikos, and the WHO website. It included English-only, peer-reviewed studies or reports covering IM processes applied by health organizations that reported their effectiveness. There was no restriction on publication dates. Two independent reviewers conducted all screening, inclusion, and quality assessments, and a third reviewer arbitrated any disagreement between the two reviewers.

Results

Reviewers identified 945 records. After a final assessment, 29 studies were included in the review and were published between 2021 and 2023. Some countries (Pakistan, Yemen, Spain, Italy, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, United Kingdom, United States, New Zealand, Finland, South Korea, and Russia) applied different methods of IM to people's behaviors. These included but were not limited to launching media and TV conservations, using web and scientific database searches, posting science-based COVID-19 information, implementing online surveys, and creating an innovative ecosystem of digital tools, and an Early AI-supported response with Social Listening (EARS) platform. Most of the interventions were effective in containing the harmful effects of COVID-19 infodemic. However, the quality of the evidence was not robust.

Discussion

Most of the infodemic interventions applied during COVID-19 fall within the recommended actions of the WHO IM ecosystem. As a result, the study suggests that more research is needed into the challenges facing health systems in different operational environments and country contexts in relation to designing, implementing, and evaluating IM interventions, strategies, policies, and systems.

Perceived experts are prevalent and influential within an antivaccine community on Twitter

Perceived experts (i.e. medical professionals and biomedical scientists) are trusted sources of medical information who are especially effective at encouraging vaccine uptake. The role of perceived experts acting as potential antivaccine influencers has not been characterized systematically. We describe the prevalence and importance of antivaccine perceived experts by constructing a coengagement network of 7,720 accounts based on a Twitter data set containing over 4.2 million posts from April 2021. The coengagement network primarily broke into two large communities that differed in their stance toward COVID-19 vaccines, and misinformation was predominantly shared by the antivaccine community. Perceived experts had a sizable presence across the coengagement network, including within the antivaccine community where they were 9.8% of individual, English-language users. Perceived experts within the antivaccine community shared low-quality (misinformation) sources at similar rates and academic sources at higher rates compared to perceived nonexperts in that community. Perceived experts occupied important network positions as central antivaccine users and bridges between the antivaccine and provaccine communities. Using propensity score matching, we found that perceived expertise brought an influence boost, as perceived experts were significantly more likely to receive likes and retweets in both the antivaccine and provaccine communities. There was no significant difference in the magnitude of the influence boost for perceived experts between the two communities. Social media platforms, scientific communications, and biomedical organizations may focus on more systemic interventions to reduce the impact of perceived experts in spreading antivaccine misinformation.

Online health information seeking and Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy: Evidence from 50+ Europeans

We use recently released data from the Survey of Health Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) to investigate the role of online health information seeking on Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy, which is defined as the reluctance or refusal to receive vaccinations despite the availability of vaccines. We adopt an instrumental variable strategy that exploits the computerization of workplaces occurred in the last century to deal with endogeneity. We find that searching for health information strongly reduces vaccine hesitancy. Results also show that individuals whose social networks suffered more during the outbreak, in terms of hospitalisations and deaths, are less likely to be hesitant. Improving individuals' technological skills might have positive spill-over effects for public health.

Misinformation and the epistemic integrity of democracy

Democracy relies on a shared body of knowledge among citizens, for example trust in elections and reliable knowledge to inform policy-relevant debate. We review the evidence for widespread disinformation campaigns that are undermining this shared knowledge. We establish a common pattern by which science and scientists are discredited and how the most recent frontier in those attacks involves researchers in misinformation itself. We list several ways in which psychology can contribute to countermeasures.

Racial and Ethnic Differences in Maternal and Child COVID-19 Vaccination Intent Among Pregnant and Postpartum Women in the USA (April-June 2020): an Application of Health Belief Model

This study investigated racial/ethnic differences in pregnant and postpartum women's intentions to receive the COVID-19 vaccination (maternal COVID-19 vaccination intent) and intentions to vaccinate their children against COVID-19 (child COVID-19 vaccination intent) during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic (April-June 2020). This study also assessed Health Belief Model constructs to examine their influence on maternal and child COVID-19 vaccination intent by race/ethnicity. This study includes 489 US pregnant and postpartum women (18-49 years) recruited via Prolific Academic to complete a 55-item cross-sectional online survey. Crude and adjusted logistic regression analyses were conducted to determine the associations between race/ethnicity, maternal COVID-19 vaccination intent, and child COVID-19 vaccination intent. Among pregnant women, the odds of maternal COVID-19 vaccination intent (aOR = 2.20, 95% CI: .862, 5.61) and child COVID-19 vaccination intent (aOR = .194, 95% CI: .066, .565) among NH Black women were statistically significantly lower than that of NH White women after adjustment for demographic, health, and health belief model variables. Among postpartum women, although some racial differences in maternal or child COVID-19 vaccination intent were observed, these differences were not statistically significant in unadjusted and adjusted models. The findings have implications for future research and interventions which should adopt a racial health equity lens and identify strategies grounded in institutional trustworthiness and systems perspectives to address racial/ethnic disparities in COVID-19 vaccination intent among pregnant and postpartum women during novel pandemics.

A taxonomy of anti-vaccination arguments from a systematic literature review and text modelling

The proliferation of anti-vaccination arguments is a threat to the success of many immunization programmes. Effective rebuttal of contrarian arguments requires an approach that goes beyond addressing flaws in the arguments, by also considering the attitude roots-that is, the underlying psychological attributes driving a person's belief-of opposition to vaccines. Here, through a pre-registered systematic literature review of 152 scientific articles and thematic analysis of anti-vaccination arguments, we developed a hierarchical taxonomy that relates common arguments and themes to 11 attitude roots that explain why an individual might express opposition to vaccination. We further validated our taxonomy on coronavirus disease 2019 anti-vaccination misinformation, through a combination of human coding and machine learning using natural language processing algorithms. Overall, the taxonomy serves as a theoretical framework to link expressed opposition of vaccines to their underlying psychological processes. This enables future work to develop targeted rebuttals and other interventions that address the underlying motives of anti-vaccination arguments.

The role and influence of perceived experts in an anti-vaccine misinformation community

The role of perceived experts (i.e., medical professionals and biomedical scientists) as potential anti-vaccine influencers has not been characterized systematically. We describe the prevalence and importance of anti-vaccine perceived experts by constructing a coengagement network based on a Twitter data set containing over 4.2 million posts from April 2021. The coengagement network primarily broke into two large communities that differed in their stance toward COVID-19 vaccines, and misinformation was predominantly shared by the anti-vaccine community. Perceived experts had a sizable presence within the anti-vaccine community and shared academic sources at higher rates compared to others in that community. Perceived experts occupied important network positions as central anti-vaccine nodes and bridges between the anti- and pro-vaccine communities. Perceived experts received significantly more engagements than other individuals within the anti- and pro-vaccine communities and there was no significant difference in the influence boost for perceived experts between the two communities. Interventions designed to reduce the impact of perceived experts who spread anti-vaccine misinformation may be warranted.

Psychological profiles of anti-vaccination argument endorsement

The proliferation of anti-vaccination arguments online can threaten immunisation programmes, including those targeting COVID-19. To effectively refute misinformed views about vaccination, communicators need to go beyond providing correct information and debunking of misconceptions, and must consider the underlying motivations of people who hold contrarian views. Drawing on a taxonomy of anti-vaccination arguments that identified 11 "attitude roots"-i.e., psychological attributes-that motivate an individual's vaccine-hesitant attitude, we assessed whether these attitude roots were identifiable in argument endorsements and responses to psychological construct measures corresponding to the presumed attitude roots. In two UK samples (total n = 1250), we found that participants exhibited monological belief patterns in their highly correlated endorsements of anti-vaccination arguments drawn from different attitude roots, and that psychological constructs representing the attitude roots significantly predicted argument endorsement strength and vaccine hesitancy. We identified four different latent anti-vaccination profiles amongst our participants' responses. We conclude that endorsement of anti-vaccination arguments meaningfully dovetails with attitude roots clustering around anti-scientific beliefs and partisan ideologies, but that the balance between those attitudes differs considerably between people. Communicators must be aware of those individual differences.

(De)legitimation of COVID-19 vaccination narratives on Facebook comments in Romania: Beyond the co-occurrence patterns of discursive strategies

The postmodern medical paradigm has empowered online users in the (de)legitimating process of health-related topics. By employing a co-occurrence analysis, this study identifies the thematic patterns used by Romanian online users in their multimodal comments to the #storiesfromvaccination Facebook campaign run by the Romanian government. The findings show that the commenters assessed source credibility through two thematic patterns: 'source exemplarity' and 'source distrust'. Health experts were more legitimized than laypersons and role models as sources in the COVID-19 vaccination campaign. Two thematic patterns emerged in the assessment of vaccination, namely: 'immunization - past and present challenges' and 'vaccination supporter versus opponent cleavage'. In the discussion on immunization, a polarization between a nostalgic longing for the past and a present corrupted medical and political system prevailed, whereas the important feature of discursive antagonism could be observed in the latter thematic pattern. The co-occurrences of (de)legitimation strategies are explained with reference to the political and medical context, along with the challenges of social media usage in online vaccination communication campaigns.

What Were the Information Voids? A Qualitative Analysis of Questions Asked by Dear Pandemic Readers between August 2020-August 2021

In the current infodemic, how individuals receive information (channel), who it is coming from (source), and how it is framed can have an important effect on COVID-19 related mitigation behaviors. In light of these challenges presented by the infodemic, Dear Pandemic (DP) was created to directly address persistent questions related to COVID-19 and other health topics in the online environment. This is a qualitative analysis of 3806 questions that were submitted by DP readers to a question box on the Dear Pandemic website between August 30, 2020 and August 29, 2021. Analyses resulted in four themes: the need for clarification of other sources; lack of trust in information; recognition of possible misinformation; and questions on personal decision-making. Each theme reflects an unmet informational need of Dear Pandemic readers, which may be reflective of the broader informational gaps in our science communication efforts.This study highlights the role of an ad hoc risk communication platform in the current environment and uses questions submitted to the Dear Pandemic question box to identify informational needs of DP readers over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings may help clarify how organizations addressing health misinformation in the digital space can contribute to timely, responsive science communication and improve future communication efforts.

Applications of Social Media and Digital Technologies in COVID-19 Vaccination: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Social media and digital technologies have played essential roles in disseminating information and promoting vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic. There is a need to summarize the applications and analytical techniques of social media and digital technologies in monitoring vaccine attitudes and administering COVID-19 vaccines.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to synthesize the global evidence on the applications of social media and digital technologies in COVID-19 vaccination and to explore their avenues to promote COVID-19 vaccination.

METHODS

We searched 6 databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, EBSCO, and IEEE Xplore) for English-language articles from December 2019 to August 2022. The search terms covered keywords relating to social media, digital technology, and COVID-19 vaccines. Articles were included if they provided original descriptions of applications of social media or digital health technologies/solutions in COVID-19 vaccination. Conference abstracts, editorials, letters, commentaries, correspondence articles, study protocols, and reviews were excluded. A modified version of the Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS tool) was used to evaluate the quality of social media-related studies. The review was undertaken with the guidance of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews.

RESULTS

A total of 178 articles were included in our review, including 114 social media articles and 64 digital technology articles. Social media has been applied for sentiment/emotion analysis, topic analysis, behavioral analysis, dissemination and engagement analysis, and information quality analysis around COVID-19 vaccination. Of these, sentiment analysis and topic analysis were the most common, with social media data being primarily analyzed by lexicon-based and machine learning techniques. The accuracy and reliability of information on social media can seriously affect public attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines, and misinformation often leads to vaccine hesitancy. Digital technologies have been applied to determine the COVID-19 vaccination strategy, predict the vaccination process, optimize vaccine distribution and delivery, provide safe and transparent vaccination certificates, and perform postvaccination surveillance. The applied digital technologies included algorithms, blockchain, mobile health, the Internet of Things, and other technologies, although with some barriers to their popularization.

CONCLUSIONS

The applications of social media and digital technologies in addressing COVID-19 vaccination-related issues represent an irreversible trend. Attention should be paid to the ethical issues and health inequities arising from the digital divide while applying and promoting these technologies.

The Prevalence, Features, Influencing Factors, and Solutions for COVID-19 Vaccine Misinformation: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, infodemic spread even more rapidly than the pandemic itself. The COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy has been prevalent worldwide and hindered pandemic exiting strategies. Misinformation around COVID-19 vaccines is a vital contributor to vaccine hesitancy. However, no evidence systematically summarized COVID-19 vaccine misinformation.

OBJECTIVE

This review aims to synthesize the global evidence on misinformation related to COVID-19 vaccines, including its prevalence, features, influencing factors, impacts, and solutions for combating misinformation.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review by searching 5 peer-reviewed databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and EBSCO). We included original articles that investigated misinformation related to COVID-19 vaccines and were published in English from January 1, 2020, to August 18, 2022. We excluded publications that did not cover or focus on COVID-19 vaccine misinformation. The Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies, version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2), and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Checklist were used to assess the study quality. The review was guided by PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021288929).

RESULTS

Of the 8864 studies identified, 91 observational studies and 11 interventional studies met the inclusion criteria. Misinformation around COVID-19 vaccines covered conspiracy, concerns on vaccine safety and efficacy, no need for vaccines, morality, liberty, and humor. Conspiracy and safety concerns were the most prevalent misinformation. There was a great variation in misinformation prevalence, noted among 2.5%-55.4% in the general population and 6.0%-96.7% in the antivaccine/vaccine hesitant groups from survey-based studies, and in 0.1%-41.3% on general online data and 0.5%-56% on antivaccine/vaccine hesitant data from internet-based studies. Younger age, lower education and economic status, right-wing and conservative ideology, and having psychological problems enhanced beliefs in misinformation. The content, format, and source of misinformation influenced its spread. A 5-step framework was proposed to address vaccine-related misinformation, including identifying misinformation, regulating producers and distributors, cutting production and distribution, supporting target audiences, and disseminating trustworthy information. The debunking messages/videos were found to be effective in several experimental studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review provides comprehensive and up-to-date evidence on COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and helps responses to vaccine infodemic in future pandemics.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021288929; https://tinyurl.com/2prejtfa.

Messaging preferences among Florida caregivers participating in focus groups who had not yet accepted the HPV vaccine for their 11- to 12-year-old child

BACKGROUND

In the United States, human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination rates remain low. The President's Cancer Panel suggests that effective messaging about the HPV vaccination focus on the vaccine's safety, efficacy, ability to prevent cancer, and recommendation at ages 11- to 12-years. We aimed to develop messages about HPV vaccine that include the President Cancer Panel's suggestions and were acceptable to caregivers of adolescents.

METHODS

From August to October 2020, we conducted one-hour, Zoom videoconference focus groups with caregivers who lived in Florida, had an 11- to 12-year-old child, and had not had any of their children receive the HPV vaccine. Focus group moderators asked caregivers to react to three videos of clinician (i.e., MD, DO, APRN, PA) recommendations and three text message reminders. Thematic analysis was conducted using the constant comparative method and led by one author with qualitative analysis expertise. Two additional authors validated findings.

RESULTS

Caregivers (n = 25 in six groups) were primarily non-Hispanic white (84%) and educated (64% had at least an Associate's degree). Approximately a third of caregivers had delayed (44%) or decided against a vaccine for their child (36%). Caregivers described six preferred message approaches: recognize caregivers' autonomy, balanced benefits and risks, trustworthy sources, increased feasibility of appointment scheduling, information prior to decision point, and preferred personalized information. Caregivers expressed a desire to have the follow-up doses mentioned in the introduction.

CONCLUSIONS

HPV vaccine messages, whether delivered by a clinician or via text message, will be more acceptable to caregivers if they approach HPV vaccination as the caregivers' decision, and include information from trusted sources to help caregivers make an informed choice.

Cross-National Vaccine Concerns and Predictors of Vaccine Hesitancy in Not-Fully Vaccinated Individuals: Findings from USA, Canada, Sweden, and Italy

Vaccine hesitancy is a key contributor to reduced COVID-19 vaccine uptake and remains a threat to COVID-19 mitigation strategies as many countries are rolling out the campaign for booster shots. The goal of our study is to identify and compare the top vaccine concerns in four countries: Canada, Italy, Sweden, and the USA and how these concerns relate to vaccine hesitancy. While most individuals in these countries are now vaccinated, we expect our results to be helpful in guiding vaccination efforts for additional doses, and more in general for other vaccines in the future. We sought to empirically test whether vaccine related concerns followed similar thematic issues in the four countries included in this study, and then to see how these themes related to vaccine hesitancy using data from a cross-sectional survey conducted in May 2021. We applied CFA and created vaccine concern scales for analysis. We then utilized these results in regression-based modeling to determine how concerns related to vaccine hesitancy and whether there were similar or different concerns by country. The results quantitatively highlight that the same vaccine related concerns permeated multiple countries at the same point in time. This implies that COVID-19 vaccination communications could benefit from global collaboration.

Bayesian subjectivism and psychosocial attitude toward COVID-19 vaccines

Background: People resistant to vaccination against the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have been counted in almost all countries worldwide. This anti-scientific subjectivity attitude could be explained by assuming as background the individual probability theory originally elaborated by the statistical school of de Finetti. Methods: This research method is based on a sample of 613 subjects from European countries who completed a questionnaire on attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccinations. On a six-value scale, a questionnaire investigated knowledge, assessments, degree of confidence, level of fear, anguish, and anger. Some items proposed an imaginary bet on the probability of not getting sick to deepen the possible presence of subjectivist assumptions about pandemics. Results: 50.4% were against vaccines and 52.5% against the so-called "Green Pass". Results of t-tests and correlations and stepwise regressions indicate that the sample's reasons for opposing vaccination are related to an ego centred vision of the values that assign minor, if any, confidence to authority. Conclusions: This result supports the conclusion that No Vax decisions are more based on subjectivist probabilistic assumptions, thus in line with the significant social trend called "individualism".

Impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on virality on social media: Content analysis of message themes and writing strategies

Background

Vaccines serve an integral role in containing pandemics, yet vaccine hesitancy is prevalent globally. One key reason for this hesitancy is the pervasiveness of misinformation on social media. Although considerable research attention has been drawn to how exposure to misinformation is closely associated with vaccine hesitancy, little scholarly attention has been given to the investigation or robust theorizing of the various content themes pertaining to antivaccine misinformation about COVID-19 and the writing strategies in which these content themes are manifested. Virality of such content on social media exhibited in the form of comments, shares, and reactions has practical implications for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

Objective

We investigated whether there were differences in the content themes and writing strategies used to disseminate antivaccine misinformation about COVID-19 and their impact on virality on social media.

Methods

We constructed an antivaccine misinformation database from major social media platforms during September 2019-August 2021 to examine how misinformation exhibited in the form of content themes and how these themes manifested in writing were associated with virality in terms of likes, comments, and shares. Antivaccine misinformation was retrieved from two globally leading and widely cited fake news databases, COVID Global Misinformation Dashboard and International Fact-Checking Network Corona Virus Facts Alliance Database, which aim to track and debunk COVID-19 misinformation. We primarily focused on 140 Facebook posts, since most antivaccine misinformation posts on COVID-19 were found on Facebook. We then employed quantitative content analysis to examine the content themes (ie, safety concerns, conspiracy theories, efficacy concerns) and manifestation strategies of misinformation (ie, mimicking of news and scientific reports in terms of the format and language features, use of a conversational style, use of amplification) in these posts and their association with virality of misinformation in the form of likes, comments, and shares.

Results

Our study revealed that safety concern was the most prominent content theme and a negative predictor of likes and shares. Regarding the writing strategies manifested in content themes, a conversational style and mimicking of news and scientific reports via the format and language features were frequently employed in COVID-19 antivaccine misinformation, with the latter being a positive predictor of likes.

Conclusions

This study contributes to a richer research-informed understanding of which concerns about content theme and manifestation strategy need to be countered on antivaccine misinformation circulating on social media so that accurate information on COVID-19 vaccines can be disseminated to the public, ultimately reducing vaccine hesitancy. The liking of COVID-19 antivaccine posts that employ language features to mimic news or scientific reports is perturbing since a large audience can be reached on social media, potentially exacerbating the spread of misinformation and hampering global efforts to combat the virus.

Social media and attitudes towards a COVID-19 vaccination: A systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Vaccine hesitancy continues to limit global efforts in combatting the COVID-19 pandemic. Emerging research demonstrates the role of social media in disseminating information and potentially influencing people's attitudes towards public health campaigns. This systematic review sought to synthesize the current evidence regarding the potential role of social media in shaping COVID-19 vaccination attitudes, and to explore its potential for shaping public health interventions to address the issue of vaccine hesitancy.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of the studies published from inception to 13 of March2022 by searching PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, PsychNET, Scopus, CINAHL, and MEDLINE. Studies that reported outcomes related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine (attitudes, opinion, etc.) gathered from the social media platforms, and those analyzing the relationship between social media use and COVID-19 hesitancy/acceptance were included. Studies that reported no outcome of interest or analyzed data from sources other than social media (websites, newspapers, etc.) will be excluded. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of all cross-sectional studies included in this review. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021283219).

FINDINGS

Of the 2539 records identified, a total of 156 articles fully met the inclusion criteria. Overall, the quality of the cross-sectional studies was moderate - 2 studies received 10 stars, 5 studies received 9 stars, 9 studies were evaluated with 8, 12 studies with 7,16 studies with 6, 11 studies with 5, and 6 studies with 4 stars. The included studies were categorized into four categories. Cross-sectional studies reporting the association between reliance on social media and vaccine intentions mainly observed a negative relationship. Studies that performed thematic analyses of extracted social media data, mainly observed a domination of vaccine hesitant topics. Studies that explored the degree of polarization of specific social media contents related to COVID-19 vaccines observed a similar degree of content for both positive and negative tone posted on different social media platforms. Finally, studies that explored the fluctuations of vaccination attitudes/opinions gathered from social media identified specific events as significant cofactors that affect and shape vaccination intentions of individuals.

INTERPRETATION

This thorough examination of the various roles social media can play in disseminating information to the public, as well as how individuals behave on social media in the context of public health events, articulates the potential of social media as a platform of public health intervention to address vaccine hesitancy.

FUNDING

None.

Misinformation about Covid-19 Vaccines on Social Media: Rapid Review

Background

The development of COVID-19 vaccines has been crucial in fighting the pandemic. However, misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccines is spread on social media platforms at a rate that has made the World Health Organization coin the phrase infodemic. False claims about adverse vaccine side effects, such as vaccines being the cause of autism, were already considered a threat to global health before the outbreak of COVID-19.

Objective

We aimed to synthesize the existing research on misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines spread on social media platforms and its effects. The secondary aim was to gain insight and gather knowledge about whether misinformation about autism and COVID-19 vaccines is being spread on social media platforms.

Methods

We performed a literature search on September 9, 2021, and searched PubMed, PsycINFO, ERIC, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register. We included publications in peer-reviewed journals that fulfilled the following criteria: original empirical studies, studies that assessed social media and misinformation, and studies about COVID-19 vaccines. Thematic analysis was used to identify the patterns (themes) of misinformation. Narrative qualitative synthesis was undertaken with the guidance of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 Statement and the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis reporting guideline. The risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool. Ratings of the certainty of evidence were based on recommendations from the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group.

Results

The search yielded 757 records, with 45 articles selected for this review. We identified 3 main themes of misinformation: medical misinformation, vaccine development, and conspiracies. Twitter was the most studied social media platform, followed by Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram. A vast majority of studies were from industrialized Western countries. We identified 19 studies in which the effect of social media misinformation on vaccine hesitancy was measured or discussed. These studies implied that the misinformation spread on social media had a negative effect on vaccine hesitancy and uptake. Only 1 study contained misinformation about autism as a side effect of COVID-19 vaccines.

Conclusions

To prevent these misconceptions from taking hold, health authorities should openly address and discuss these false claims with both cultural and religious awareness in mind. Our review showed that there is a need to examine the effect of social media misinformation on vaccine hesitancy with a more robust experimental design. Furthermore, this review also demonstrated that more studies are needed from the Global South and on social media platforms other than the major platforms such as Twitter and Facebook.

Trial Registration

PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42021277524; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021277524

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

RR2-10.31219/osf.io/tyevj

Gearing Up for a Vaccine Requirement: A Mixed Methods Study of COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence Among Workers at an Academic Medical Center

GOAL

Assessing barriers to vaccination among healthcare workers may be particularly important given their roles in their respective communities. We conducted a mixed methods study to explore healthcare worker perspectives on receiving COVID-19 vaccines at a large multisite academic medical center.

METHODS

A total of 5,917 employees completed the COVID-19 vaccine confidence survey (20% response rate). Most participants were vaccinated (93%). Compared to vaccinated participants, unvaccinated participants were younger (60% < 44 years), more likely to be from a non-Asian minority group (48%), and more likely to be nonclinical employees (57% vs. 46%). Among the unvaccinated respondents, 53% indicated they would be influenced by their healthcare provider, while 19% reported that nothing would influence them to get vaccinated. Key perceived barriers to vaccination from the qualitative analysis included the need for more long-term safety and efficacy data, a belief in the right to make an individual choice, mistrust, a desire for greater public health information, personal health concerns, circumstances such as prior COVID-19 infection, and access issues.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Strategies endorsed by some participants to address their concerns about safety and access included a communication campaign, personalized medicine approaches (e.g., individual appointments to discuss how the vaccine might interact with personal health conditions), and days off to recover. Mistrust and a belief in the right to make an individual choice may be harder barriers to overcome; further dialogue is needed.

APPLICATIONS TO PRACTICE

These findings reflect potential strategies for vaccine requirements that healthcare organizations can implement to enhance vaccine confidence. In addition, organizations can ask respected health professionals to serve as spokespeople, which may help shift the perspectives of unvaccinated healthcare workers.

A Quasi-Experimental Intervention Trial: Testing the Efficacy of Attitudinal Inoculation Videos to Enhance COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance

BACKGROUND

Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, a variety of COVID-19 related misinformation has spread and been amplified online. The spread of misinformation can influence COVID-19 beliefs and protective actions including vaccine hesitancy. Belief in vaccine misinformation is associated with lower vaccination rates and higher vaccine resistance. Attitudinal inoculation is a preventative approach to combating misinformation and disinformation which leverages the power of narrative, rhetoric, values, and emotion.

OBJECTIVE

This study seeks to test inoculation messages in the form of short video messages to promote resistance against persuasion by COVID-19 vaccine misinformation.

METHODS

We designed a series of 30-second inoculation videos and conducted a quasi-experimental study to test the use of attitudinal inoculation in a population of individuals who were unvaccinated (N = 1991). The three intervention videos were distinguished by their script design- with Intervention Video 1 focusing on narrative/rhetorical ("Narrative") presentation of information, Intervention Video 2 focusing on delivering a fact-based information ("Fact"), and Intervention Video 3 using a hybrid design ("Hybrid"). Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to compare the main effect of intervention group on the three outcome variables: ability to recognize misinformation tactics ("Recognize", willingness to share misinformation ("Share"), and willingness to take the COVID-19 vaccine ("Willingness").

RESULTS

There were significant effects across all three outcome variables comparing inoculation intervention groups to controls. For the Recognize outcome, the ability to recognize rhetorical strategies, there was a significant intervention group effect (P<.001). For the Share outcome, support for sharing the mis-disinformation, the intervention group main effect was statistically significant ( P=.017). For the Willingness outcome, there was a significant intervention group effect; intervention groups were more willing to get the COVID-19 vaccine compared to controls ( P=.006).

CONCLUSIONS

Across all intervention groups, inoculated individuals showed greater resistance to misinformation than their non-inoculated counterparts. Relative to those who were not inoculated, inoculated participants showed significantly greater ability to recognize and identify rhetorical strategies used in misinformation, were less likely to share false information, and had greater willingness to get the COVID-19 vaccine. Attitudinal inoculation delivered through short video messages should be tested in public health messaging campaigns to counter mis-disinformation.

CLINICALTRIAL

Exploring the Association between Misinformation Endorsement, Opinions on the Government Response, Risk Perception, and COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in the US, Canada, and Italy

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the adverse consequences created by an infodemic, specifically bringing attention to compliance with public health guidance and vaccine uptake. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is a complex construct that is related to health beliefs, misinformation exposure, and perceptions of governmental institutions. This study draws on theoretical models and current data on the COVID-19 infodemic to explore the association between the perceived risk of COVID-19, level of misinformation endorsement, and opinions about the government response on vaccine uptake. We surveyed a sample of 2697 respondents from the US, Canada, and Italy using a mobile platform between 21–28 May 2021. Using multivariate regression, we found that country of residence, risk perception of contracting and spreading COVID-19, perception of government response and transparency, and misinformation endorsement were associated with the odds of vaccine hesitancy. Higher perceived risk was associated with lower odds of hesitancy, while lower perceptions of government response and higher misinformation endorsement were associated with higher hesitancy.

COVID-19 Vaccine Early Skepticism, Misinformation and Informational Needs among Essential Workers in the USA

This study presents the results of a survey of 1591 hesitant U.S. essential workers, conducted over Pollfish in December 2020 when they were the only group eligible for the vaccine, aiming to describe their concerns regarding COVID-19 vaccine safety, effectiveness and distribution policies. We computed frequencies using the SAS software for each answer, using chi-squared statistics and Cochran-Armitage trend tests to determine how informational needs differ by age, gender, level of education, race, source of COVID-19 information and levels of vaccine acceptance. The results of this study show that freedom of choice, equal access to the vaccine and being able to live a life with no restrictions once vaccinated were important concerns since the early days of the distribution campaign, with 53% (836/1591), 42% (669/1591) and 35% (559/1591) of hesitant respondents, respectively, indicating they would be more likely to receive the COVID-19 vaccine if they felt these issues were satisfactorily addressed. Early risk communication and immunization campaign strategies should address not only the reported efficacy and safety of new vaccines, but, as equally important, the population's perceptions and beliefs regarding personal choice, effectiveness and adverse consequences.

Cultural Variance in Reception and Interpretation of Social Media COVID-19 Disinformation in French-Speaking Regions

Digital communication technology has created a world in which media are capable of crossing national boundaries as never before. As a result, language is increasingly the salient category determining individuals' media consumption. Today, a single social media post can travel around the world, reaching anyone who speaks its language. This poses significant challenges to combatting the spread of disinformation, as an ever-growing pool of disinformation purveyors reach audiences larger than ever before. This dynamic is complicated, however, by the diversity of audience interpretations of message content within a particular language group. Both across and within national boundaries, a single message may be subject to a variety of interpretations depending on the cultural experiences and identities of its recipients. This study explores that dynamic through analysis of French language anti-vaccine and COVID-denialist disinformation. Using qualitative coding methodology, a team of researchers empirically identify common and far-reaching patterns of Francophone COVID disinformation narratives and rhetoric. These narratives and rhetorics are then subjected to hermeneutic close reading to determine likely variations in their reception across different French-speaking cultures. Data were gathered and analyzed between the dates of 24 March 2021 and 27 April 2021. Results of this study indicate the need for awareness on the part of public health officials combatting COVID disinformation online, for both the transnational reach of disinformation targeting speakers of a single language and for variations in meaning and salience across cultures within that language group.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and acceptance among individuals with cancer, autoimmune diseases, and other serious comorbid conditions: A cross-sectional internet-based survey

Background

Individuals with comorbid conditions have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19. Since regulatory trials of COVID-19 vaccines excluded those with immunocompromising conditions, few patients with cancer and autoimmune diseases were enrolled. With limited vaccine safety data available, vulnerable populations may have conflicted vaccine attitudes.

Objective

We assessed the prevalence and independent predictors of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and acceptance among individuals with serious comorbidities and assessed self-reported side effects among those who had been vaccinated.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional, 55-item, online survey, fielded January 15, 2021 through February 22, 2021, among a random sample of members of Inspire, an online health community of over 2.2 million individuals with comorbid conditions. Multivariable regression analysis was utilized to determine factors independently associated with vaccine hesitancy and acceptance.

Results

Of the 996,500 members of the Inspire health community invited to participate, responses were received from 21,943 individuals (2.2%). Respondents resided in 123 countries (United States: 16,277/21,943, 74.2%), had a median age range of 56-65 years, were highly educated (college or postgraduate degree: 10,198/17,298, 58.9%), and had diverse political leanings. All respondents self-reported at least one comorbidity: cancer, 27.3% (5459/19,980); autoimmune diseases, 23.2% (4946/21,294); chronic lung diseases: 35.4% (7544/21,294). COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was identified in 18.6% (3960/21,294), with 10.3% (2190/21,294) declaring that they would not, 3.5% (742/21,294) stating that they probably would not, and 4.8% (1028/21,294) not sure whether they would agree to be vaccinated. Hesitancy was expressed by the following patients: cancer, 13.4% (731/5459); autoimmune diseases, 19.4% (962/4947); chronic lung diseases: 17.8% (1344/7544). Positive predictors of vaccine acceptance included routine influenza vaccination (odds ratio [OR] 1.53), trust in responsible vaccine development (OR 14.04), residing in the United States (OR 1.31), and never smoked (OR 1.06). Hesitancy increased with a history of prior COVID-19 (OR 0.86), conservative political leaning (OR 0.93), younger age (OR 0.83), and lower education level (OR 0.90). One-quarter (5501/21,294, 25.8%) had received at least one COVID-19 vaccine injection, and 6.5% (1390/21,294) completed a 2-dose series. Following the first injection, 69.0% (3796/5501) self-reported local reactions, and 40.0% (2200/5501) self-reported systemic reactions, which increased following the second injection to 77.0% (1070/1390) and 67.0% (931/1390), respectively.

Conclusions

In this survey of individuals with serious comorbid conditions, significant vaccine hesitancy remained. Assumptions that the most vulnerable would automatically accept COVID-19 vaccination are erroneous and thus call for health care team members to initiate discussions focusing on the impact of the vaccine on an individual’s underlying condition. Early self-reported side effect experiences among those who had already been vaccinated, as expressed by our population, should be reassuring and might be utilized to alleviate vaccine fears. Health care–related social media forums that rapidly disseminate accurate information about the COVID-19 vaccine may play an important role.

Reasons for SARS-CoV-2 infection in children and their role in the transmission of infection according to age: a case-control study

BACKGROUND

The locations where children get exposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection and their contribution in spreading the infection are still not fully understood. Aim of the article is to verify the most frequent reasons for SARS-CoV-2 infection in children and their role in the secondary transmission of the infection.

METHODS

A case-control study was performed in all SARS-CoV-2 positive children (n = 81) and an equal number of age- and sex- matched controls who were referred to the S. Camillo-Forlanini Pediatric Walk-in Center of Rome. The results of all SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal swabs performed in children aged < 18 years from October 16 to December 19, 2020 were analyzed.

RESULTS

School contacts were more frequent in controls than in cases (OR 0.49; 95% CI: 0.3-0.9), while household contacts were higher in cases (OR 5.09; 95% CI: 2.2-12.0). In both cases and controls, school contacts were significantly less frequent, while on the contrary household contacts seemed to be more frequent in nursery school children compared to primary school or middle/high school children. A multivariate logistic regression showed that the probability of being positive to SARS-CoV-2 was significantly lower in children who had school contacts or who had flu symptoms compared to children who had household contacts. Results showed a 30.6% secondary attack rate for household contacts.

CONCLUSION

In our study population, the two most frequent reasons for SARS-CoV-2 infection were school and home contacts. The risk of being positive was 5 times lower in children who had school contacts than in children who had household contacts.