Public perception of COVID-19 vaccines from the digital footprints left on Twitter: analyzing positive, neutral and negative sentiments of Twitterati

Aasif Ahmad Mir, Sevukan Rathinam, Sumeer Gul
{"title":"Public perception of COVID-19 vaccines from the digital footprints left on Twitter: analyzing positive, neutral and negative sentiments of Twitterati","authors":"Aasif Ahmad Mir, Sevukan Rathinam, Sumeer Gul","doi":"10.1108/lht-08-2021-0261","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeTwitter is gaining popularity as a microblogging and social networking service to discuss various social issues. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a global pandemic and is discussed worldwide. Social media is an instant platform to deliberate various dimensions of COVID-19. The purpose of the study is to explore and analyze the public sentiments related to COVID-19 vaccines across the Twitter messages (positive, neutral, and negative) and the impact tweets make across digital social circles.Design/methodology/approachTo fetch the vaccine-related posts, a manual examination of randomly selected 500 tweets was carried out to identify the popular hashtags relevant to the vaccine conversation. It was found that the hashtags “covid19vaccine” and “coronavirusvaccine” were the two popular hashtags used to discuss the communications related to COVID-19 vaccines. 23,575 global tweets available in public domain were retrieved through “Twitter Application Programming Interface” (API), using “Orange Software”, an open-source machine learning, data visualization and data mining toolkit. The study was confined to the tweets posted in English language only. The default data cleaning and preprocessing techniques available in the “Orange Software” were applied to the dataset, which include “transformation”, “tokenization” and “filtering”. The “Valence Aware Dictionary for sEntiment Reasoning” (VADER) tool was used for classification of tweets to determine the tweet sentiments (positive, neutral and negative) as well as the degree of sentiments (compound score also known as sentiment score). To assess the influence/impact of tweets account wise (verified and unverified) and sentiment wise (positive, neutral, and negative), the retweets and likes, which offer a sort of reward or acknowledgment of tweets, were used.FindingsA gradual decline in the number of tweets over the time is observed. Majority (11,205; 47.52%) of tweets express positive sentiments, followed by neutral (7,948; 33.71%) and negative sentiments (4,422; 18.75%), respectively. The study also signifies a substantial difference between the impact of tweets tweeted by verified and unverified users. The tweets related to verified users have a higher impact both in terms of retweets (65.91%) and likes (84.62%) compared to the tweets tweeted by unverified users. Tweets expressing positive sentiments have the highest impact both in terms of likes (mean = 10.48) and retweets (mean = 3.07) compared to those that express neutral or negative sentiments.Research limitations/implicationsThe main limitation of the study is that the sentiments of the people expressed over one single social platform, that is, Twitter have been studied which cannot generalize the global public perceptions. There can be a variation in the results when the datasets from other social media platforms will be studied.Practical implicationsThe study will help to know the people's sentiments and beliefs toward the COVID-19 vaccines. Sentiments that people hold about the COVID-19 vaccines are studied, which will help health policymakers understand the polarity (positive, negative, and neutral) of the tweets and thus see the public reaction and reflect the types of information people are exposed to about vaccines. The study can aid the health sectors to intensify positive messages and eliminate negative messages for an enhanced vaccination uptake. The research can also help design more operative vaccine-advocating communication by customizing messages using the obtained knowledge from the sentiments and opinions about the vaccines.Originality/valueThe paper focuses on an essential aspect of COVID-19 vaccines and how people express themselves (positively, neutrally and negatively) on Twitter.","PeriodicalId":118541,"journal":{"name":"Libr. Hi Tech","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"23","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Libr. Hi Tech","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/lht-08-2021-0261","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 23

Abstract

PurposeTwitter is gaining popularity as a microblogging and social networking service to discuss various social issues. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a global pandemic and is discussed worldwide. Social media is an instant platform to deliberate various dimensions of COVID-19. The purpose of the study is to explore and analyze the public sentiments related to COVID-19 vaccines across the Twitter messages (positive, neutral, and negative) and the impact tweets make across digital social circles.Design/methodology/approachTo fetch the vaccine-related posts, a manual examination of randomly selected 500 tweets was carried out to identify the popular hashtags relevant to the vaccine conversation. It was found that the hashtags “covid19vaccine” and “coronavirusvaccine” were the two popular hashtags used to discuss the communications related to COVID-19 vaccines. 23,575 global tweets available in public domain were retrieved through “Twitter Application Programming Interface” (API), using “Orange Software”, an open-source machine learning, data visualization and data mining toolkit. The study was confined to the tweets posted in English language only. The default data cleaning and preprocessing techniques available in the “Orange Software” were applied to the dataset, which include “transformation”, “tokenization” and “filtering”. The “Valence Aware Dictionary for sEntiment Reasoning” (VADER) tool was used for classification of tweets to determine the tweet sentiments (positive, neutral and negative) as well as the degree of sentiments (compound score also known as sentiment score). To assess the influence/impact of tweets account wise (verified and unverified) and sentiment wise (positive, neutral, and negative), the retweets and likes, which offer a sort of reward or acknowledgment of tweets, were used.FindingsA gradual decline in the number of tweets over the time is observed. Majority (11,205; 47.52%) of tweets express positive sentiments, followed by neutral (7,948; 33.71%) and negative sentiments (4,422; 18.75%), respectively. The study also signifies a substantial difference between the impact of tweets tweeted by verified and unverified users. The tweets related to verified users have a higher impact both in terms of retweets (65.91%) and likes (84.62%) compared to the tweets tweeted by unverified users. Tweets expressing positive sentiments have the highest impact both in terms of likes (mean = 10.48) and retweets (mean = 3.07) compared to those that express neutral or negative sentiments.Research limitations/implicationsThe main limitation of the study is that the sentiments of the people expressed over one single social platform, that is, Twitter have been studied which cannot generalize the global public perceptions. There can be a variation in the results when the datasets from other social media platforms will be studied.Practical implicationsThe study will help to know the people's sentiments and beliefs toward the COVID-19 vaccines. Sentiments that people hold about the COVID-19 vaccines are studied, which will help health policymakers understand the polarity (positive, negative, and neutral) of the tweets and thus see the public reaction and reflect the types of information people are exposed to about vaccines. The study can aid the health sectors to intensify positive messages and eliminate negative messages for an enhanced vaccination uptake. The research can also help design more operative vaccine-advocating communication by customizing messages using the obtained knowledge from the sentiments and opinions about the vaccines.Originality/valueThe paper focuses on an essential aspect of COVID-19 vaccines and how people express themselves (positively, neutrally and negatively) on Twitter.
从推特上留下的数字足迹看公众对COVID-19疫苗的看法:分析推特人的积极、中立和消极情绪
作为一个讨论各种社会问题的微博和社交网络服务,twitter越来越受欢迎。2019冠状病毒病(COVID-19)已成为全球大流行,在世界范围内引起了广泛讨论。社交媒体是讨论新冠肺炎各方面问题的即时平台。该研究的目的是探索和分析推特消息(积极,中立和消极)中与COVID-19疫苗相关的公众情绪以及推特在数字社交圈中的影响。设计/方法/方法为了获取与疫苗相关的帖子,对随机选择的500条推文进行了人工检查,以确定与疫苗对话相关的热门标签。结果发现,“COVID-19疫苗”和“冠状病毒疫苗”是讨论COVID-19疫苗相关通信的两个热门标签。通过“Twitter应用程序编程接口”(API),使用开源机器学习、数据可视化和数据挖掘工具包“Orange Software”,检索了23,575条公共领域的全球推文。这项研究仅限于用英语发布的推文。“橙色软件”中提供的默认数据清理和预处理技术应用于数据集,包括“转换”,“标记化”和“过滤”。使用“Valence Aware Dictionary for sEntiment Reasoning”(VADER)工具对推文进行分类,确定推文的情绪(积极、中性和消极)以及情绪程度(复合得分也称为情绪得分)。为了评估推文账户(已验证和未验证)和情绪(积极,中立和消极)的影响/影响,使用了转发和点赞,这提供了一种对推文的奖励或认可。发现随着时间的推移,推文的数量逐渐下降。多数(11205;47.52%)的推文表达了积极情绪,其次是中性(7948;33.71%)和负面情绪(4422;18.75%),分别为。该研究还表明,经过验证的用户和未经验证的用户发布的推文的影响存在实质性差异。与未经验证的用户发布的推文相比,与验证用户相关的推文在转发(65.91%)和点赞(84.62%)方面都具有更高的影响。与表达中性或负面情绪的推文相比,表达积极情绪的推文在点赞(平均= 10.48)和转发(平均= 3.07)方面的影响最大。研究的局限性/意义研究的主要局限性是人们在一个单一的社交平台上表达的情绪,即Twitter已经被研究,不能概括全球公众的看法。当研究来自其他社交媒体平台的数据集时,结果可能会有所不同。实践意义本研究有助于了解民众对新冠肺炎疫苗的情绪和信念。研究人们对COVID-19疫苗的看法,有助于卫生政策制定者了解推文的极性(积极、消极和中性),从而了解公众的反应,反映人们接触到的关于疫苗的信息类型。这项研究可以帮助卫生部门加强积极信息并消除消极信息,以加强疫苗接种。该研究还可以通过利用从疫苗的情绪和观点中获得的知识来定制信息,帮助设计更有效的疫苗倡导沟通。原创性/价值本文关注的是COVID-19疫苗的一个重要方面,以及人们如何在Twitter上表达自己(积极、中立和消极)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书