Dataset Information

Comparing the quality of pro- and anti-vaccination online information: a content analysis of vaccination-related webpages.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The exponential increase in health-related online platforms has made the Internet one of the main sources of health information globally. The quality of health contents disseminated on the Internet has been a central focus for many researchers. To date, however, few comparative content analyses of pro- and anti-vaccination websites have been conducted, and none of them compared the quality of information. The main objective of this study was therefore to bring new evidence on this aspect by comparing the quality of pro- and anti-vaccination online sources.

Methods

Based on past literature and health information quality evaluation initiatives, a 40-categories assessment tool (Online Vaccination Information Quality Codebook) was developed and used to code a sample of 1093 webpages retrieved via Google and two filtered versions of the same search engine. The categories investigated were grouped into four main quality dimensions: web-related design quality criteria (10 categories), health-specific design quality criteria (3 categories), health related content attributes (12 categories) and vaccination-specific content attributes (15 categories). Data analysis comprised frequency counts, cross tabulations, Pearson's chi-square, and other inferential indicators.

Results

The final sample included 514 webpages in favor of vaccination, 471 against, and 108 neutral. Generally, webpages holding a favorable view toward vaccination presented more quality indicators compared to both neutral and anti-vaccination pages. However, some notable exceptions to this rule were observed. In particular, no differences were found between pro- and anti-vaccination webpages as regards vaccination-specific content attributes.

Conclusions

Our analyses showed that the overall quality of pro-vaccination webpages is superior to anti-vaccination online sources. The developed coding scheme was proven to be a helpful and reliable tool to judge the quality of vaccination-related webpages. Based on the results, we advance recommendations for online health information providers as well as directions for future research in this field.

SUBMITTER: Sak G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4714533 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparing the quality of pro- and anti-vaccination online information: a content analysis of vaccination-related webpages.

Sak Gabriele G Diviani Nicola N Allam Ahmed A Schulz Peter J PJ

BMC public health 20160115

<h4>Background</h4>The exponential increase in health-related online platforms has made the Internet one of the main sources of health information globally. The quality of health contents disseminated on the Internet has been a central focus for many researchers. To date, however, few comparative content analyses of pro- and anti-vaccination websites have been conducted, and none of them compared the quality of information. The main objective of this study was therefore to bring new evidence on ...[more]

PMID: 26769342

Similar Datasets

Project description:Vaccine hesitancy-the reluctance to receive recommended vaccination because of concerns and doubts about vaccines-is recognized as a significant threat to the success of vaccination programs and has been associated with recent major outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases. Moreover, the association between complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use and vaccine hesitancy and/or refusal has been frequently reported in the literature. To date, significant gaps persist in our understanding of contemporary Canadian CAM providers' beliefs regarding vaccination and how socio-professional influences may shape their vaccine-related attitudes and behaviours. To address the latter gap, the current study aims to explore the content of professional guidelines, recommendations and other discourses among CAM providers as they concern vaccination by analyzing both academic, peer-reviewed literature and Canadian organizational webpages prepared by and/or for practicing chiropractors, naturopaths and homeopaths. In the academic literature, we identified a number of complex and diverging views on vaccination that spanned topics of effectiveness; safety; theoretical, empirical, and ethical soundness; political justifiability; and compatibility with CAM philosophy and professional boundaries. However, in its current state the CAM literature cannot be described in broad strokes as being either pro- or anti-vaccination without considering finer areas of disagreement. Compared to the academic literature, which focuses more on the conceptual and evidentiary basis of vaccination, a greater proportion of vaccine-related content on Canadian CAM organizations' webpages seems to be dedicated to offering specific directives and prescriptions to providers. Guidelines and standards of practice address a number of issues, including vaccine administration, counsel, education and marketing. As CAM organizations further evolve in Canada and elsewhere as part of a broader "professionalization" initiative, greater attention will need to be directed at their role in shaping providers' beliefs and practices that both support and undermine vaccine promotion efforts.

Project description:BackgroundIn the United States, the internet is widely used to seek health information. Despite an estimated 18 million Google searches on abortion per year and the demonstrated importance of the abortion pill as an option for pregnancy termination, the top webpage search results for abortion pill searches, as well as the content and quality of those webpages, are not well understood.MethodsWe used Google's Custom Search Application Programming Interface (API) to identify the top 10 webpages presented for "abortion pill" searches on August 06, 2018. We developed a comprehensive, evidence-based Family Planning Webpage Quality Assessment Tool (FPWQAT), which was used to assess webpage quality for the five top webpages presenting text-based educational content.ResultsOf the top webpages for "abortion pill" searches, a plannedparenthood.com page was the top result and scored highest on our assessment (81%), providing high-quality and useable information. The other four webpages, a Wikipedia.com page and three anti-abortion information webpages, scored much lower on our assessment (14%-43%). These four webpages had lower quality of information in less useable formats. The anti-abortion pages also presented a variety of disinformation about the abortion pill.ConclusionsBoth the lack of accurate clinical content on the majority of top webpages and the concerning disinformation they contained raise concerns about the quality of online abortion pill information, while underlining challenges posed by Google search results to informed choice for consumers. Healthcare providers and consumers must be informed of online abortion pill content that is not based in current clinical evidence, while advocates and policymakers should push for online information that is credible and useable. These changes are imperative given the importance of sound abortion pill information for reproductive decision-making at a time when in-person abortion services are further challenged in the US.

Project description:BackgroundOver 20,000 parents in the United States face the challenge of participating in decisions about whether to use life support for their infants born on the cusp of viability every year. Clinicians must help families grasp complex medical information about their baby's immediate prognosis as well as the risk for significant long-term morbidity. Patients faced with this decision want supplemental information and frequently seek medical information on the Internet. Empirical evidence about the quality of websites is lacking.ObjectiveWe sought to evaluate the quality of online information available about periviable birth and treatment options for infants born at the cusp of viability.MethodsWe read a counseling script to 20 pregnant participants that included information typically provided by perinatal and neonatal providers when periviable birth is imminent. The women were then asked to list terms they would use to search the Internet if they wanted additional information. Using these search terms, two reviewers evaluated the content of websites obtained via a Google search. We used two metrics to assess the quality of websites. The first was the DISCERN instrument, a validated questionnaire designed to assess the quality of patient-targeted health information for treatment choices. The second metric was the Essential Content Tool (ECT), a tool designed to address key components of counseling around periviable birth as outlined by professional organizations. DISCERN scores were classified as low quality if scores were 2, fair quality if scores were 3, and high quality if scores were 4 or higher. Scores of 6 or higher on the ECT were considered high quality. Interreviewer agreement was assessed by calculated kappa statistic.ResultsA total of 97 websites were reviewed. Over half (57/97, 59%) were for-profit sites, news stories, or personal blogs; 28% (27/97) were government or medical sites; and 13% (13/97) were nonprofit or advocacy sites. The majority of sites scored poorly in DISCERN questions designed to assess the reliability of information presented as well as data regarding treatment choices. Only 7% (7/97) of the websites were high quality as defined by the DISCERN tool. The majority of sites did not address the essential content defined by the ECT. Importantly, only 18% of websites (17/97) indicated that there are often a number of reasonable approaches to newborn care when faced with periviable birth. Agreement was strong, with kappa ranging from .72 to .91.ConclusionsMost information about periviable birth found on the Internet using common search strategies is of low quality. News stories highlighting positive outcomes are disproportionately represented. Few websites discuss comfort care or how treatment decisions impact quality of life.

Project description:ObjectiveInformational social support is one of the main reasons for patients to visit online health communities (OHCs). Calls have been made to investigate the objective quality of such support in the light of a worrying number of inaccurate online health-related information. The main aim of this study is to conceptualize the Quality of Informational Social Support (QISS) and develop and test a measure of QISS for content analysis. A further aim is to investigate the level of QISS in cancer-related messages in the largest OHC in Slovenia and examine the differences among various types of discussion forums, namely, online consultation forums, online support group forums, and socializing forums.MethodsA multidimensional measurement instrument was developed, which included 20 items in a coding scheme for a content analysis of cancer-related messages. On a set of almost three million posts published between 2015 and 2019, a machine-learning algorithm was used to detect cancer-related discussions in the OHC. We then identified the messages providing informational social support, and through quantitative content analysis, three experts coded a random sample of 403 cancer-related messages for the QISS.ResultsThe results demonstrate a good level of interrater reliability and agreement for a QISS scale with six dimensions, each demonstrating good internal consistency. The results reveal large differences among the social support, socializing, and consultation forums, with the latter recording significantly higher quality in terms of accuracy (M = 4.48, P < .001), trustworthiness (M = 4.65, P < .001), relevance (M = 3.59, P < .001), and justification (M = 3.81, P = .05) in messages providing informational social support regarding cancer-related issues.ConclusionsThis study provides the research field with a valid tool to further investigate the factors and consequences of varying quality of information exchanged in supportive communication. From a practical perspective, OHCs should dedicate more resources and develop mechanisms for the professional moderation of health-related topics in socializing forums and thereby suppress the publication and dissemination of low-quality information among OHC users and visitors.

Dataset Information

Comparing the quality of pro- and anti-vaccination online information: a content analysis of vaccination-related webpages.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Comparing the quality of pro- and anti-vaccination online information: a content analysis of vaccination-related webpages.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets