Media Data and Vaccine Hesitancy: Scoping Review.

IF 3.5 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
JMIR infodemiology Pub Date : 2022-07-01 DOI:10.2196/37300
Jason Dean-Chen Yin
{"title":"Media Data and Vaccine Hesitancy: Scoping Review.","authors":"Jason Dean-Chen Yin","doi":"10.2196/37300","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Media studies are important for vaccine hesitancy research, as they analyze how the media shapes risk perceptions and vaccine uptake. Despite the growth in studies in this field owing to advances in computing and language processing and an expanding social media landscape, no study has consolidated the methodological approaches used to study vaccine hesitancy. Synthesizing this information can better structure and set a precedent for this growing subfield of digital epidemiology.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This review aimed to identify and illustrate the media platforms and methods used to study vaccine hesitancy and how they build or contribute to the study of the media's influence on vaccine hesitancy and public health.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study followed the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. A search was conducted on PubMed and Scopus for any studies that used media data (social media or traditional media), had an outcome related to vaccine sentiment (opinion, uptake, hesitancy, acceptance, or stance), were written in English, and were published after 2010. Studies were screened by only 1 reviewer and extracted for media platform, analysis method, the theoretical models used, and outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 125 studies were included, of which 71 (56.8%) used traditional research methods and 54 (43.2%) used computational methods. Of the traditional methods, most used content analysis (43/71, 61%) and sentiment analysis (21/71, 30%) to analyze the texts. The most common platforms were newspapers, print media, and web-based news. The computational methods mostly used sentiment analysis (31/54, 57%), topic modeling (18/54, 33%), and network analysis (17/54, 31%). Fewer studies used projections (2/54, 4%) and feature extraction (1/54, 2%). The most common platforms were Twitter and Facebook. Theoretically, most studies were weak. The following five major categories of studies arose: antivaccination themes centered on the distrust of institutions, civil liberties, misinformation, conspiracy theories, and vaccine-specific concerns; provaccination themes centered on ensuring vaccine safety using scientific literature; framing being important and health professionals and personal stories having the largest impact on shaping vaccine opinion; the coverage of vaccination-related data mostly identifying negative vaccine content and revealing deeply fractured vaccine communities and echo chambers; and the public reacting to and focusing on certain signals-in particular cases, deaths, and scandals-which suggests a more volatile period for the spread of information.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The heterogeneity in the use of media to study vaccines can be better consolidated through theoretical grounding. Areas of suggested research include understanding how trust in institutions is associated with vaccine uptake, how misinformation and information signaling influence vaccine uptake, and the evaluation of government communications on vaccine rollouts and vaccine-related events. The review ends with a statement that media data analyses, though groundbreaking in approach, should supplement-not supplant-current practices in public health research.</p>","PeriodicalId":73554,"journal":{"name":"JMIR infodemiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9987198/pdf/","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR infodemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/37300","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: 3

Abstract

Background: Media studies are important for vaccine hesitancy research, as they analyze how the media shapes risk perceptions and vaccine uptake. Despite the growth in studies in this field owing to advances in computing and language processing and an expanding social media landscape, no study has consolidated the methodological approaches used to study vaccine hesitancy. Synthesizing this information can better structure and set a precedent for this growing subfield of digital epidemiology.

Objective: This review aimed to identify and illustrate the media platforms and methods used to study vaccine hesitancy and how they build or contribute to the study of the media's influence on vaccine hesitancy and public health.

Methods: This study followed the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. A search was conducted on PubMed and Scopus for any studies that used media data (social media or traditional media), had an outcome related to vaccine sentiment (opinion, uptake, hesitancy, acceptance, or stance), were written in English, and were published after 2010. Studies were screened by only 1 reviewer and extracted for media platform, analysis method, the theoretical models used, and outcomes.

Results: In total, 125 studies were included, of which 71 (56.8%) used traditional research methods and 54 (43.2%) used computational methods. Of the traditional methods, most used content analysis (43/71, 61%) and sentiment analysis (21/71, 30%) to analyze the texts. The most common platforms were newspapers, print media, and web-based news. The computational methods mostly used sentiment analysis (31/54, 57%), topic modeling (18/54, 33%), and network analysis (17/54, 31%). Fewer studies used projections (2/54, 4%) and feature extraction (1/54, 2%). The most common platforms were Twitter and Facebook. Theoretically, most studies were weak. The following five major categories of studies arose: antivaccination themes centered on the distrust of institutions, civil liberties, misinformation, conspiracy theories, and vaccine-specific concerns; provaccination themes centered on ensuring vaccine safety using scientific literature; framing being important and health professionals and personal stories having the largest impact on shaping vaccine opinion; the coverage of vaccination-related data mostly identifying negative vaccine content and revealing deeply fractured vaccine communities and echo chambers; and the public reacting to and focusing on certain signals-in particular cases, deaths, and scandals-which suggests a more volatile period for the spread of information.

Conclusions: The heterogeneity in the use of media to study vaccines can be better consolidated through theoretical grounding. Areas of suggested research include understanding how trust in institutions is associated with vaccine uptake, how misinformation and information signaling influence vaccine uptake, and the evaluation of government communications on vaccine rollouts and vaccine-related events. The review ends with a statement that media data analyses, though groundbreaking in approach, should supplement-not supplant-current practices in public health research.

Abstract Image

媒体数据和疫苗犹豫:范围审查。
背景:媒体研究对疫苗犹豫研究很重要,因为它们分析媒体如何塑造风险认知和疫苗摄取。尽管由于计算和语言处理的进步以及社交媒体的不断扩大,这一领域的研究有所增加,但没有一项研究巩固了用于研究疫苗犹豫的方法学方法。综合这些信息可以更好地构建并为数字流行病学这一不断发展的分支领域树立先例。目的:本综述旨在确定和说明用于研究疫苗犹豫的媒体平台和方法,以及它们如何构建或促进媒体对疫苗犹豫和公共卫生的影响的研究。方法:本研究遵循PRISMA-ScR(首选报告项目的系统评价和荟萃分析扩展范围评价)指南。我们在PubMed和Scopus上检索了所有使用媒体数据(社交媒体或传统媒体)、结果与疫苗情绪(意见、接受、犹豫、接受或立场)相关、以英文撰写并在2010年之后发表的研究。研究仅由1位审稿人筛选,并根据媒体平台、分析方法、使用的理论模型和结果进行提取。结果:共纳入125篇研究,其中传统研究方法71篇(56.8%),计算方法54篇(43.2%)。在传统的文本分析方法中,主要采用内容分析(43/ 71,61 %)和情感分析(21/ 71,30 %)。最常见的平台是报纸、印刷媒体和网络新闻。计算方法主要采用情感分析(31/ 54,57 %)、主题建模(18/ 54,33 %)和网络分析(17/ 54,31 %)。较少的研究使用投影(2/ 54,4%)和特征提取(1/ 54,2%)。最常见的平台是Twitter和Facebook。从理论上讲,大多数研究都很薄弱。出现了以下五个主要类别的研究:反疫苗主题集中在对机构、公民自由、错误信息、阴谋论和疫苗特定问题的不信任;以利用科学文献确保疫苗安全为中心的预防接种主题;框架很重要,卫生专业人员和个人故事对形成疫苗意见影响最大;疫苗接种相关数据的覆盖范围主要是确定阴性疫苗内容并揭示严重断裂的疫苗社区和回声室;公众对某些信号的反应和关注——在特殊情况下,死亡和丑闻——表明信息传播的更不稳定时期。结论:通过理论铺垫,可以更好地巩固疫苗使用介质的异质性。建议的研究领域包括了解对机构的信任如何与疫苗接种相关联,错误信息和信息信号如何影响疫苗接种,以及评估政府关于疫苗推广和疫苗相关事件的信息通报。该综述以一项声明结束,即媒体数据分析虽然在方法上具有开创性,但应该补充——而不是取代——公共卫生研究中的现行做法。
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
CiteScore
4.80
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信