Assessing the Readability, Credibility, and Accuracy of Online Vaccine Information for Pregnant and Lactating Individuals: A Cross-Platform Analysis

IF 1.6 4区医学 Q4 DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY

Birth Defects Research Pub Date : 2025-06-27 DOI:10.1002/bdr2.2500

Ayhan Ceri

{"title":"Assessing the Readability, Credibility, and Accuracy of Online Vaccine Information for Pregnant and Lactating Individuals: A Cross-Platform Analysis","authors":"Ayhan Ceri","doi":"10.1002/bdr2.2500","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Pregnant and lactating individuals frequently rely on online sources for vaccine information. However, the readability, credibility, and accuracy of such content vary widely, potentially influencing vaccine hesitancy. This study evaluates the accessibility and reliability of online vaccine information across different digital platforms.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A cross-sectional content analysis was conducted on vaccine-related content published between 2018 and 2022. Data were collected from official health websites (e.g., WHO, CDC), social media (Twitter, Facebook), blogs, and parenting forums. Readability was assessed using the Flesch–Kincaid (FK) and SMOG indices, while credibility was evaluated using the DISCERN tool and HONcode certification. Accuracy was determined by comparing claims against scientific evidence from authoritative health organizations. Statistical analyses, including one-way ANOVA and chi-square tests, were performed to examine readability differences and misinformation prevalence across platforms.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Official health websites had the highest readability complexity (average FK grade level: 11.8 ± 1.2), while social media content was the most accessible (average FK grade level: 7.8 ± 1.0). However, social media also exhibited the highest misinformation prevalence (38%), whereas official sources maintained near-perfect accuracy (98% compliance with scientific evidence). Blogs and forums demonstrated moderate readability (FK grade level: 9.5 ± 1.4 and 8.7 ± 1.1, respectively) but varied in credibility (DISCERN scores: 40–50/80). Thematic analysis revealed dominant misinformation trends, including fear-based narratives (52% of misinformation cases) and scientific distortions (29%). Accessibility barriers were also identified, with only 10% of sources providing multilingual content, and disparities in digital health resources were observed between high- and low-income regions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>This study highlights the trade-off between readability and credibility in online vaccine information. While official sources provide reliable content, their complexity may hinder comprehension. Addressing accessibility gaps through plain-language communication and misinformation mitigation strategies is crucial for improving digital health literacy and supporting informed maternal vaccine decision-making.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":9121,"journal":{"name":"Birth Defects Research","volume":"117 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Birth Defects Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdr2.2500","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Pregnant and lactating individuals frequently rely on online sources for vaccine information. However, the readability, credibility, and accuracy of such content vary widely, potentially influencing vaccine hesitancy. This study evaluates the accessibility and reliability of online vaccine information across different digital platforms.

Methods

A cross-sectional content analysis was conducted on vaccine-related content published between 2018 and 2022. Data were collected from official health websites (e.g., WHO, CDC), social media (Twitter, Facebook), blogs, and parenting forums. Readability was assessed using the Flesch–Kincaid (FK) and SMOG indices, while credibility was evaluated using the DISCERN tool and HONcode certification. Accuracy was determined by comparing claims against scientific evidence from authoritative health organizations. Statistical analyses, including one-way ANOVA and chi-square tests, were performed to examine readability differences and misinformation prevalence across platforms.

Results

Official health websites had the highest readability complexity (average FK grade level: 11.8 ± 1.2), while social media content was the most accessible (average FK grade level: 7.8 ± 1.0). However, social media also exhibited the highest misinformation prevalence (38%), whereas official sources maintained near-perfect accuracy (98% compliance with scientific evidence). Blogs and forums demonstrated moderate readability (FK grade level: 9.5 ± 1.4 and 8.7 ± 1.1, respectively) but varied in credibility (DISCERN scores: 40–50/80). Thematic analysis revealed dominant misinformation trends, including fear-based narratives (52% of misinformation cases) and scientific distortions (29%). Accessibility barriers were also identified, with only 10% of sources providing multilingual content, and disparities in digital health resources were observed between high- and low-income regions.

Conclusion

This study highlights the trade-off between readability and credibility in online vaccine information. While official sources provide reliable content, their complexity may hinder comprehension. Addressing accessibility gaps through plain-language communication and misinformation mitigation strategies is crucial for improving digital health literacy and supporting informed maternal vaccine decision-making.

查看原文本刊更多论文

评估孕妇和哺乳期个体在线疫苗信息的可读性、可信度和准确性：一项跨平台分析

背景：孕妇和哺乳期的人经常依赖在线来源获取疫苗信息。然而，这些内容的可读性、可信度和准确性差异很大，可能会影响疫苗的犹豫。本研究评估了不同数字平台上在线疫苗信息的可及性和可靠性。方法对2018 - 2022年发表的疫苗相关内容进行横断面内容分析。数据收集自官方卫生网站（如WHO、CDC）、社交媒体（Twitter、Facebook）、博客和育儿论坛。使用Flesch-Kincaid （FK）和SMOG指数评估可读性，而使用DISCERN工具和HONcode认证评估可信度。准确性是通过比较来自权威卫生组织的科学证据来确定的。统计分析包括单因素方差分析和卡方检验，以检验不同平台的可读性差异和错误信息的流行程度。结果官方健康网站的可读性复杂度最高（平均FK等级水平：11.8±1.2），而社交媒体内容的可读性最高（平均FK等级水平：7.8±1.0）。然而，社交媒体也显示出最高的错误信息流行率（38%），而官方来源保持近乎完美的准确性（98%符合科学证据）。博客和论坛表现出中等的可读性（FK等级水平分别为9.5±1.4和8.7±1.1），但可信度有所不同（DISCERN得分：40-50/80）。专题分析揭示了主要的错误信息趋势，包括基于恐惧的叙述（52%的错误信息案例）和科学扭曲（29%）。还发现了可访问性障碍，只有10%的资源提供多语言内容，并且在高收入地区和低收入地区之间观察到数字卫生资源的差异。结论本研究强调了在线疫苗信息的可读性和可信度之间的权衡。虽然官方来源提供了可靠的内容，但它们的复杂性可能会阻碍理解。通过简单的语言沟通和减少错误信息战略解决可及性差距，对于提高数字卫生素养和支持知情的孕产妇疫苗决策至关重要。

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

Birth Defects Research Medicine-Embryology

CiteScore

3.60

自引率

9.50%

发文量

153

期刊介绍： The journal Birth Defects Research publishes original research and reviews in areas related to the etiology of adverse developmental and reproductive outcome. In particular the journal is devoted to the publication of original scientific research that contributes to the understanding of the biology of embryonic development and the prenatal causative factors and mechanisms leading to adverse pregnancy outcomes, namely structural and functional birth defects, pregnancy loss, postnatal functional defects in the human population, and to the identification of prenatal factors and biological mechanisms that reduce these risks. Adverse reproductive and developmental outcomes may have genetic, environmental, nutritional or epigenetic causes. Accordingly, the journal Birth Defects Research takes an integrated, multidisciplinary approach in its organization and publication strategy. The journal Birth Defects Research contains separate sections for clinical and molecular teratology, developmental and reproductive toxicology, and reviews in developmental biology to acknowledge and accommodate the integrative nature of research in this field. Each section has a dedicated editor who is a leader in his/her field and who has full editorial authority in his/her area.