Dataset Information

Antivaccination activists on the world wide web.

ABSTRACT: AIMS:To determine the likelihood of finding an antivaccination site on the world wide web and to characterise their explicit claims and rhetorical appeals. METHODS:Using "vaccination" and "immunisation", examining the first 10 sites displayed on seven leading search engines. Detailed examination of content of 100 antivaccination sites found on Google. RESULTS:43% of websites were antivaccination (all of the first 10 on Google). Main rhetorical appeals involve themes of the scientific veracity of antivaccination argument; rapport with parents seeking to protect their children from harm; and alleged collusion between doctors, the pharmaceutical industry, and government to deny vaccine harm. CONCLUSIONS:There is a high probability that parents will encounter elaborate antivaccination material on the world wide web. Factual refutational strategies alone are unlikely to counter the highly rhetorical appeals that shape these sites.

SUBMITTER: Davies P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1751143 | biostudies-literature | 2002 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Antivaccination activists on the world wide web.

Davies P P Chapman S S Leask J J

Archives of disease in childhood 20020701 1

<h4>Aims</h4>To determine the likelihood of finding an antivaccination site on the world wide web and to characterise their explicit claims and rhetorical appeals.<h4>Methods</h4>Using "vaccination" and "immunisation", examining the first 10 sites displayed on seven leading search engines. Detailed examination of content of 100 antivaccination sites found on Google.<h4>Results</h4>43% of websites were antivaccination (all of the first 10 on Google). Main rhetorical appeals involve themes of the ...[more]

PMID: 12089115

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOne relatively new and increasingly popular approach of increasing access to treatment is Web-based intervention programs. The advantage of Web-based approaches is the accessibility, affordability, and anonymity of potentially evidence-based treatment. Despite much research evidence on the effectiveness of Web-based interventions for anxiety found in the literature, little is known about what is publically available for potential consumers on the Web.ObjectiveOur aim was to explore what a consumer searching the Web for Web-based intervention options for anxiety-related issues might find. The objectives were to identify currently publically available Web-based intervention programs for anxiety and to synthesize and review these in terms of (1) website characteristics such as credibility and accessibility; (2) intervention program characteristics such as intervention focus, design, and presentation modes; (3) therapeutic elements employed; and (4) published evidence of efficacy.MethodsWeb keyword searches were carried out on three major search engines (Google, Bing, and Yahoo-UK platforms). For each search, the first 25 hyperlinks were screened for eligible programs. Included were programs that were designed for anxiety symptoms, currently publically accessible on the Web, had an online component, a structured treatment plan, and were available in English. Data were extracted for website characteristics, program characteristics, therapeutic characteristics, as well as empirical evidence. Programs were also evaluated using a 16-point rating tool.ResultsThe search resulted in 34 programs that were eligible for review. A wide variety of programs for anxiety, including specific anxiety disorders, and anxiety in combination with stress, depression, or anger were identified and based predominantly on cognitive behavioral therapy techniques. The majority of websites were rated as credible, secure, and free of advertisement. The majority required users to register and/or to pay a program access fee. Half of the programs offered some form of paid therapist or professional support. Programs varied in treatment length and number of modules and employed a variety of presentation modes. Relatively few programs had published research evidence of the intervention's efficacy.ConclusionsThis review represents a snapshot of available Web-based intervention programs for anxiety that could be found by consumers in March 2015. The consumer is confronted with a diversity of programs, which makes it difficult to identify an appropriate program. Limited reports and existence of empirical evidence for efficacy make it even more challenging to identify credible and reliable programs. This highlights the need for consistent guidelines and standards on developing, providing, and evaluating Web-based interventions and platforms with reliable up-to-date information for professionals and consumers about the characteristics, quality, and accessibility of Web-based interventions.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough researchers extensively study the rapid generation and spread of misinformation about the novel coronavirus during the pandemic, numerous other health-related topics are contaminating the internet with misinformation that have not received as much attention.ObjectiveThis study aims to gauge the reach of the most popular medical content on the World Wide Web, extending beyond the confines of the pandemic. We conducted evaluations of subject matter and credibility for the years 2021 and 2022, following the principles of evidence-based medicine with assessments performed by experienced clinicians.MethodsWe used 274 keywords to conduct web page searches through the BuzzSumo Enterprise Application. These keywords were chosen based on medical topics derived from surveys administered to medical practitioners. The search parameters were confined to 2 distinct date ranges: (1) January 1, 2021, to December 31, 2021; (2) January 1, 2022, to December 31, 2022. Our searches were specifically limited to web pages in the Polish language and filtered by the specified date ranges. The analysis encompassed 161 web pages retrieved in 2021 and 105 retrieved in 2022. Each web page underwent scrutiny by a seasoned doctor to assess its credibility, aligning with evidence-based medicine standards. Furthermore, we gathered data on social media engagements associated with the web pages, considering platforms such as Facebook, Pinterest, Reddit, and Twitter.ResultsIn 2022, the prevalence of unreliable information related to COVID-19 saw a noteworthy decline compared to 2021. Specifically, the percentage of noncredible web pages discussing COVID-19 and general vaccinations decreased from 57% (43/76) to 24% (6/25) and 42% (10/25) to 30% (3/10), respectively. However, during the same period, there was a considerable uptick in the dissemination of untrustworthy content on social media pertaining to other medical topics. The percentage of noncredible web pages covering cholesterol, statins, and cardiology rose from 11% (3/28) to 26% (9/35) and from 18% (5/28) to 26% (6/23), respectively.ConclusionsEfforts undertaken during the COVID-19 pandemic to curb the dissemination of misinformation seem to have yielded positive results. Nevertheless, our analysis suggests that these interventions need to be consistently implemented across both established and emerging medical subjects. It appears that as interest in the pandemic waned, other topics gained prominence, essentially "filling the vacuum" and necessitating ongoing measures to address misinformation across a broader spectrum of health-related subjects.

Dataset Information

Antivaccination activists on the world wide web.

Publications

Antivaccination activists on the world wide web.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets