Geneviève Jessiman-Perreault, Jean-Christophe Boucher, So Youn Kim, Nicole Frenette, Abbas Badami, Henry M Smith, Lisa K Allen Scott
{"title":"The Role of Scientific Research in Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Discussions on Twitter: Social Network Analysis.","authors":"Geneviève Jessiman-Perreault, Jean-Christophe Boucher, So Youn Kim, Nicole Frenette, Abbas Badami, Henry M Smith, Lisa K Allen Scott","doi":"10.2196/50551","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Attitudes toward the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine and accuracy of information shared about this topic in web-based settings vary widely. As real-time, global exposure to web-based discourse about HPV immunization shapes the attitudes of people toward vaccination, the spread of misinformation and misrepresentation of scientific knowledge contribute to vaccine hesitancy.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>In this study, we aimed to better understand the type and quality of scientific research shared on Twitter (recently rebranded as X) by vaccine-hesitant and vaccine-confident communities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To analyze the use of scientific research on social media, we collected tweets and retweets using a list of keywords associated with HPV and HPV vaccines using the Academic Research Product Track application programming interface from January 2019 to May 2021. From this data set, we identified tweets referring to or sharing scientific literature through a Boolean search for any tweets with embedded links, hashtags, or keywords associated with scientific papers. First, we used social network analysis to build a retweet or reply network to identify the clusters of users belonging to either the vaccine-confident or vaccine-hesitant communities. Second, we thematically assessed all shared papers based on typology of evidence. Finally, we compared the quality of research evidence and bibliometrics between the shared papers in the vaccine-confident and vaccine-hesitant communities.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We extracted 250 unique scientific papers (including peer-reviewed papers, preprints, and gray literature) from approximately 1 million English-language tweets. Social network maps were generated for the vaccine-confident and vaccine-hesitant communities sharing scientific research on Twitter. Vaccine-hesitant communities share fewer scientific papers; yet, these are more broadly disseminated despite being published in less prestigious journals compared to those shared by the vaccine-confident community.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Vaccine-hesitant communities have adopted communication tools traditionally wielded by health promotion communities. Vaccine-confident communities would benefit from a more cohesive communication strategy to communicate their messages more widely and effectively.</p>","PeriodicalId":73554,"journal":{"name":"JMIR infodemiology","volume":"4 ","pages":"e50551"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11117132/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR infodemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/50551","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Attitudes toward the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine and accuracy of information shared about this topic in web-based settings vary widely. As real-time, global exposure to web-based discourse about HPV immunization shapes the attitudes of people toward vaccination, the spread of misinformation and misrepresentation of scientific knowledge contribute to vaccine hesitancy.
Objective: In this study, we aimed to better understand the type and quality of scientific research shared on Twitter (recently rebranded as X) by vaccine-hesitant and vaccine-confident communities.
Methods: To analyze the use of scientific research on social media, we collected tweets and retweets using a list of keywords associated with HPV and HPV vaccines using the Academic Research Product Track application programming interface from January 2019 to May 2021. From this data set, we identified tweets referring to or sharing scientific literature through a Boolean search for any tweets with embedded links, hashtags, or keywords associated with scientific papers. First, we used social network analysis to build a retweet or reply network to identify the clusters of users belonging to either the vaccine-confident or vaccine-hesitant communities. Second, we thematically assessed all shared papers based on typology of evidence. Finally, we compared the quality of research evidence and bibliometrics between the shared papers in the vaccine-confident and vaccine-hesitant communities.
Results: We extracted 250 unique scientific papers (including peer-reviewed papers, preprints, and gray literature) from approximately 1 million English-language tweets. Social network maps were generated for the vaccine-confident and vaccine-hesitant communities sharing scientific research on Twitter. Vaccine-hesitant communities share fewer scientific papers; yet, these are more broadly disseminated despite being published in less prestigious journals compared to those shared by the vaccine-confident community.
Conclusions: Vaccine-hesitant communities have adopted communication tools traditionally wielded by health promotion communities. Vaccine-confident communities would benefit from a more cohesive communication strategy to communicate their messages more widely and effectively.