Behavioural interventions to reduce vaccine hesitancy driven by misinformation on social media.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ruggeri K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10789192 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Behavioural interventions to reduce vaccine hesitancy driven by misinformation on social media.
Ruggeri Kai K Vanderslott Samantha S Yamada Yuki Y Argyris Young Anna YA Većkalov Bojana B Boggio Paulo Sergio PS Fallah Mosoka P MP Stock Friederike F Hertwig Ralph R
BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20240116
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundFalse claims about COVID-19 vaccines can undermine public trust in ongoing vaccination campaigns, posing a threat to global public health. Misinformation originating from various sources has been spreading on the web since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Antivaccine activists have also begun to use platforms such as Twitter to promote their views. To properly understand the phenomenon of vaccine hesitancy through the lens of social media, it is of great importance to gather the relevant data.ObjectiveIn this paper, we describe a data set of Twitter posts and Twitter accounts that publicly exhibit a strong antivaccine stance. The data set is made available to the research community via our AvaxTweets data set GitHub repository. We characterize the collected accounts in terms of prominent hashtags, shared news sources, and most likely political leaning.MethodsWe started the ongoing data collection on October 18, 2020, leveraging the Twitter streaming application programming interface (API) to follow a set of specific antivaccine-related keywords. Then, we collected the historical tweets of the set of accounts that engaged in spreading antivaccination narratives between October 2020 and December 2020, leveraging the Academic Track Twitter API. The political leaning of the accounts was estimated by measuring the political bias of the media outlets they shared.ResultsWe gathered two curated Twitter data collections and made them publicly available: (1) a streaming keyword-centered data collection with more than 1.8 million tweets, and (2) a historical account-level data collection with more than 135 million tweets. The accounts engaged in the antivaccination narratives lean to the right (conservative) direction of the political spectrum. The vaccine hesitancy is fueled by misinformation originating from websites with already questionable credibility.ConclusionsThe vaccine-related misinformation on social media may exacerbate the levels of vaccine hesitancy, hampering progress toward vaccine-induced herd immunity, and could potentially increase the number of infections related to new COVID-19 variants. For these reasons, understanding vaccine hesitancy through the lens of social media is of paramount importance. Because data access is the first obstacle to attain this goal, we published a data set that can be used in studying antivaccine misinformation on social media and enable a better understanding of vaccine hesitancy.
| S-EPMC8694238 | biostudies-literature
Project description:It is widely acknowledged that vaccine hesitancy is a multifaceted problem that cannot be addressed by a single strategy. Behavior change theories and social media tools may together help to guide the design of interventions aimed at improving vaccination uptake. This systematic review aims to identify the breadth and effectiveness of such theories and tools. The systematic review search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, ACM, Cochrane Library, ProQuest, and Web of Science databases for studies between January 2011 and January 2021 that applied social media tools to increase vaccine confidence or improve vaccination uptake. The literature search yielded a total of 3,065 publications. Twenty articles met the eligibility criteria, 12 of which were theory-based interventions. The result shows that the Health Belief Model was the most frequently deployed theory, and the most common social media tool was educational posts, followed by dialogue-based groups, interactive websites, and personal reminders. Theory-based interventions were generally more measurable and comparable and had more evidence to trigger the positive behavior change. Fifteen studies reported the effectiveness in knowledge gain, intention increase, or behavior change. Educational messages were proved to be effective in increasing knowledge but less helpful in triggering behavior change. Dialogue-based social media intervention performed well in improving people's intention to vaccinate. Interventions informed by behavior change theory and delivered via social media platforms offer an important opportunity for addressing vaccine hesitancy. This review highlights the need to use a multitheory framework and tailoring social media interventions to the specific circumstances and needs of the target audience in future interventions. The results and insights gained from this review will be of assistance to future studies.
| S-EPMC8848992 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe rise of social media users and the explosive growth in misinformation shared across social media platforms have become a serious threat to democratic discourse and public health. The mentioned implications have increased the demand for misinformation detection and intervention. To contribute to this challenge, we are presenting a systematic scoping review of psychological interventions countering misinformation in social media. The review was conducted to (i) identify and map evidence on psychological interventions countering misinformation, (ii) compare the viability of the interventions on social media, and (iii) provide guidelines for the development of effective interventions.MethodsA systematic search in three bibliographic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Scopus) and additional searches in Google Scholar and reference lists were conducted.Results3,561 records were identified, 75 of which met the eligibility criteria for the inclusion in the final review. The psychological interventions identified during the review can be classified into three categories distinguished by Kozyreva et al.: Boosting, Technocognition, and Nudging, and then into 15 types within these. Most of the studied interventions were not implemented and tested in a real social media environment but under strictly controlled settings or online crowdsourcing platforms. The presented feasibility assessment of implementation insights expressed qualitatively and with numerical scoring could guide the development of future interventions that can be successfully implemented on social media platforms.DiscussionThe review provides the basis for further research on psychological interventions counteracting misinformation. Future research on interventions should aim to combine effective Technocognition and Nudging in the user experience of online services.Systematic review registration[https://figshare.com/], identifier [https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14649432.v2].
| S-EPMC9849948 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Understanding how vaccine hesitancy relates to online behavior is crucial for addressing current and future disease outbreaks. We combined survey data measuring attitudes toward the COVID-19 vaccine with Twitter data in two studies (N 1 = 464 Twitter users, N 2 = 1,600 Twitter users) with preregistered hypotheses to examine how real-world social media behavior is associated with vaccine hesitancy in the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK). In Study 1, we found that following the accounts of US Republican politicians or hyper-partisan/low-quality news sites were associated with lower confidence in the COVID-19 vaccine-even when controlling for key demographics such as self-reported political ideology and education. US right-wing influencers (e.g. Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson) had followers with the lowest confidence in the vaccine. Network analysis revealed that participants who were low and high in vaccine confidence separated into two distinct communities (or "echo chambers"), and centrality in the more right-wing community was associated with vaccine hesitancy in the US, but not in the UK. In Study 2, we found that one's likelihood of not getting the vaccine was associated with retweeting and favoriting low-quality news websites on Twitter. Altogether, we show that vaccine hesitancy is associated with following, sharing, and interacting with low-quality information online, as well as centrality within a conservative-leaning online community in the US. These results illustrate the potential challenges of encouraging vaccine uptake in a polarized social media environment.
| S-EPMC9802475 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There has been a surge in vaccine hesitancy following the Coronavirus pandemic. This study measured the prevalence of and identified factors associated with vaccine hesitancy and social media use. An online survey was administered (n = 1050) between May and July 2021. Chi-square tests were used to examine bivariate associations with vaccine hesitancy (partially vaccinated and unvaccinated participants). Logistic regression was used to identify associations between social media use and vaccine hesitancy. Chi-square tests showed women (69.7% vs 28.2% men, padjusted = .002), African American participants (52.3% vs 17.8% white, padjusted < .001), high school diploma (54.4% vs 38.6% college degree, padjusted < .001), political unaffiliated (15.8% vs 14.5% republican, padjusted < .001), Muslim (10.0% vs 0% Jewish, padjusted < .001), and never married/single (53.9% vs 17.0% married, padjusted < .001) were more likely to be vaccine hesitant. Controlling for all demographic variables (age, race, gender, and education), more frequent use of social media for reading news was associated with lower vaccine hesitancy (OR 0.35, 99% CI 0.20, 0.63, p < 0.001). However, using social media as a source of vaccine information without any other trusted source (health department, doctor, CDC,) was associated with higher odds of being vaccine hesitant (OR 2.00, 99% CI 1.15, 3.46, p = 0.001). People who use social media without referencing trusted sources may be particularly vulnerable to disinformation or vaccine hesitant persons are more likely exposed to non-trusted social media sites as their only information source.
| S-EPMC8947854 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The current study examined various types of misinformation related to the COVID-19 vaccines and their relationships to vaccine hesitancy and refusal. Study 1 asked a sample of full-time working professionals in the US (n = 505) about possible misinformation they were exposed to related to the COVID-19 vaccines. Study 2 utilized an online survey to examine U.S. college students' (n = 441) knowledge about COVID-19 vaccines, and its associations with vaccine hesitancy and behavioral intention to get a COVID-19 vaccine. Analysis of open-ended responses in Study 1 revealed that 57.6% reported being exposed to conspiratorial misinformation such as COVID-19 vaccines are harmful and dangerous. The results of a structural equation modeling analysis for Study 2 supported our hypotheses predicting a negative association between the knowledge level and vaccine hesitancy and between vaccine hesitancy and behavioral intention. Vaccine hesitancy mediated the relationship between the vaccine knowledge and behavioral intention. Findings across these studies suggest exposure to misinformation and believing it as true could increase vaccine hesitancy and reduce behavioral intention to get vaccinated.
| S-EPMC9366757 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionDespite the widespread availability of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in the USA, vaccine hesitancy continues to represent a significant impediment to the attainment of herd immunity and the end of the COVID-19 pandemic. This survey analysis provides an update for clinical healthcare providers and public health officials regarding current trends in misinformation exposure, as well as common objections to COVID-19 vaccination.MethodsWe conducted a web-based survey of 600 adults in the state of Florida between June 3 and June 14, 2021. Access to the sample was purchased through an industry-leading market research provider (Prodege MR), and survey respondents were selected using a stratified, quota sampling approach to ensure representativeness. Balanced quotas were determined (by region of the state) for gender, age, race, education, and ethnicity. The survey responses were analyzed using basic descriptive statistics, as well as chi-square testing and a logit regression model.FindingsHigh levels of misinformation exposure were observed among participants, with 73% reporting some exposure to misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines in the past 6 months. Exposure to misinformation was directly correlated with vaccine hesitancy. Among those who did not report any exposure to misinformation, 73.8% of respondents were vaccinated. That number fell to 62.9% with exposure to just one misinformation theme and 52.2% for six or more (χ2 = 11.349; φ = 0.138; p ≤ 0.05). Politicization was also found to be a major factor in vaccine hesitancy, with 73.4% of self-identified Democrats being vaccinated, compared to only 58.5% of Republicans and 56.5% of Independents (χ2 = 16.334; φ = 0.165; p ≤ 0.001). Both misinformation exposure and political affiliation were strong predictors of vaccination even after accounting for other demographic predictors.DiscussionThe survey results add to previous research on misinformation and vaccine hesitancy by quantifying exposure to specific misinformation themes and identifying its relationship to vaccine hesitancy. Overcoming these impediments to vaccination will require strategic and targeted messaging on the part of public health professionals, which may be aided by collaboration with political thought leaders. Understanding the volume and nature of misinformation themes the public is exposed to regarding COVID-19 vaccines may aid public health officials in targeting this vaccine messaging to more directly address reasons for vaccine hesitancy.
| S-EPMC8528483 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Current interventions to combat misinformation, including fact-checking, media literacy tips and media coverage of misinformation, may have unintended consequences for democracy. We propose that these interventions may increase scepticism towards all information, including accurate information. Across three online survey experiments in three diverse countries (the United States, Poland and Hong Kong; total n = 6,127), we tested the negative spillover effects of existing strategies and compared them with three alternative interventions against misinformation. We examined how exposure to fact-checking, media literacy tips and media coverage of misinformation affects individuals' perception of both factual and false information, as well as their trust in key democratic institutions. Our results show that while all interventions successfully reduce belief in false information, they also negatively impact the credibility of factual information. This highlights the need for further improved strategies that minimize the harms and maximize the benefits of interventions against misinformation.
| S-EPMC11343704 | biostudies-literature
Project description:As COVID-19 vaccines are rolled out across the world, there are growing concerns about the roles that trust, belief in conspiracy theories, and spread of misinformation through social media play in impacting vaccine hesitancy. We use a nationally representative survey of 1476 adults in the UK between 12 and 18 December 2020, along with 5 focus groups conducted during the same period. Trust is a core predictor, with distrust in vaccines in general and mistrust in government raising vaccine hesitancy. Trust in health institutions and experts and perceived personal threat are vital, with focus groups revealing that COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is driven by a misunderstanding of herd immunity as providing protection, fear of rapid vaccine development and side effects, and beliefs that the virus is man-made and used for population control. In particular, those who obtain information from relatively unregulated social media sources-such as YouTube-that have recommendations tailored by watch history, and who hold general conspiratorial beliefs, are less willing to be vaccinated. Since an increasing number of individuals use social media for gathering health information, interventions require action from governments, health officials, and social media companies. More attention needs to be devoted to helping people understand their own risks, unpacking complex concepts, and filling knowledge voids.
| S-EPMC8226842 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough at present there is broad agreement among researchers, health professionals, and policy makers on the need to control and combat health misinformation, the magnitude of this problem is still unknown. Consequently, it is fundamental to discover both the most prevalent health topics and the social media platforms from which these topics are initially framed and subsequently disseminated.ObjectiveThis systematic review aimed to identify the main health misinformation topics and their prevalence on different social media platforms, focusing on methodological quality and the diverse solutions that are being implemented to address this public health concern.MethodsWe searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science for articles published in English before March 2019, with a focus on the study of health misinformation in social media. We defined health misinformation as a health-related claim that is based on anecdotal evidence, false, or misleading owing to the lack of existing scientific knowledge. We included (1) articles that focused on health misinformation in social media, including those in which the authors discussed the consequences or purposes of health misinformation and (2) studies that described empirical findings regarding the measurement of health misinformation on these platforms.ResultsA total of 69 studies were identified as eligible, and they covered a wide range of health topics and social media platforms. The topics were articulated around the following six principal categories: vaccines (32%), drugs or smoking (22%), noncommunicable diseases (19%), pandemics (10%), eating disorders (9%), and medical treatments (7%). Studies were mainly based on the following five methodological approaches: social network analysis (28%), evaluating content (26%), evaluating quality (24%), content/text analysis (16%), and sentiment analysis (6%). Health misinformation was most prevalent in studies related to smoking products and drugs such as opioids and marijuana. Posts with misinformation reached 87% in some studies. Health misinformation about vaccines was also very common (43%), with the human papilloma virus vaccine being the most affected. Health misinformation related to diets or pro-eating disorder arguments were moderate in comparison to the aforementioned topics (36%). Studies focused on diseases (ie, noncommunicable diseases and pandemics) also reported moderate misinformation rates (40%), especially in the case of cancer. Finally, the lowest levels of health misinformation were related to medical treatments (30%).ConclusionsThe prevalence of health misinformation was the highest on Twitter and on issues related to smoking products and drugs. However, misinformation on major public health issues, such as vaccines and diseases, was also high. Our study offers a comprehensive characterization of the dominant health misinformation topics and a comprehensive description of their prevalence on different social media platforms, which can guide future studies and help in the development of evidence-based digital policy action plans.
| S-EPMC7857950 | biostudies-literature