社交媒体与COVID-19大流行期间疫苗偏好的演变:离散选择实验。

IF 2.3 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
JMIR infodemiology Pub Date : 2025-05-28 DOI:10.2196/66081
Robbie Maris, Zack Dorner, Stephane Hess, Steven Tucker
{"title":"社交媒体与COVID-19大流行期间疫苗偏好的演变:离散选择实验。","authors":"Robbie Maris, Zack Dorner, Stephane Hess, Steven Tucker","doi":"10.2196/66081","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Vaccine information and misinformation are spread through social media in ways that may vary by platform. Understanding the role social media plays in shaping vaccine preferences is crucial for policymakers and researchers.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to test whether social media use is associated with changes in vaccine preferences during the COVID-19 pandemic in New Zealand, and whether trust in sources of information has a moderating role.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Our data consist of a balanced panel of 257 web-based respondents in New Zealand in August 2020, October-November 2020, and March-April 2021. We use a novel approach with stated choice panel data to study transitions between different vaccine preference groups. We analyze the associations between these transitions and social media use. We classify respondents as resistant (never chose a vaccine), hesitant (chose a vaccine between 1 and 5 times), and provaccine (chose a vaccine 6 out of 6 times) in each wave of data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found a positive or neutral association between social media use and vaccine uptake. Facebook, Twitter (pre-2022), and TikTok users who are provaccine are less likely to become hesitant or resistant. Facebook and Instagram users who are hesitant are more likely to become pro. Some social media platforms may have a more positive association with vaccine uptake preferences for those who do not trust the government.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The paper contributes to the wider literature, which shows social media can be associated with reinforcing both pro and antivaccination sentiment, and these results depend on where individuals get their information from and their trust in such sources.</p>","PeriodicalId":73554,"journal":{"name":"JMIR infodemiology","volume":"5 ","pages":"e66081"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12165271/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Social Media and the Evolution of Vaccine Preferences During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Discrete Choice Experiment.\",\"authors\":\"Robbie Maris, Zack Dorner, Stephane Hess, Steven Tucker\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/66081\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Vaccine information and misinformation are spread through social media in ways that may vary by platform. Understanding the role social media plays in shaping vaccine preferences is crucial for policymakers and researchers.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to test whether social media use is associated with changes in vaccine preferences during the COVID-19 pandemic in New Zealand, and whether trust in sources of information has a moderating role.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Our data consist of a balanced panel of 257 web-based respondents in New Zealand in August 2020, October-November 2020, and March-April 2021. We use a novel approach with stated choice panel data to study transitions between different vaccine preference groups. We analyze the associations between these transitions and social media use. We classify respondents as resistant (never chose a vaccine), hesitant (chose a vaccine between 1 and 5 times), and provaccine (chose a vaccine 6 out of 6 times) in each wave of data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found a positive or neutral association between social media use and vaccine uptake. Facebook, Twitter (pre-2022), and TikTok users who are provaccine are less likely to become hesitant or resistant. Facebook and Instagram users who are hesitant are more likely to become pro. Some social media platforms may have a more positive association with vaccine uptake preferences for those who do not trust the government.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The paper contributes to the wider literature, which shows social media can be associated with reinforcing both pro and antivaccination sentiment, and these results depend on where individuals get their information from and their trust in such sources.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73554,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JMIR infodemiology\",\"volume\":\"5 \",\"pages\":\"e66081\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12165271/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JMIR infodemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/66081\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR infodemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/66081","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

摘要

背景:疫苗信息和错误信息通过社交媒体传播的方式可能因平台而异。了解社交媒体在形成疫苗偏好方面的作用对政策制定者和研究人员至关重要。目的:本研究旨在测试社交媒体的使用是否与新西兰COVID-19大流行期间疫苗偏好的变化有关,以及对信息来源的信任是否具有调节作用。方法:我们的数据包括2020年8月、2020年10月至11月和2021年3月至4月在新西兰进行的257名网络受访者的平衡小组。我们使用一种新颖的方法与陈述选择面板数据来研究不同疫苗偏好组之间的转变。我们分析了这些转变与社交媒体使用之间的联系。在每一波数据中,我们将应答者分为耐药(从未选择疫苗)、犹豫(在1到5次之间选择疫苗)和provvaccine(在6次中选择了6次疫苗)。结果:我们发现社交媒体使用与疫苗接种之间存在正相关或中性相关。Facebook、Twitter(2022年之前)和TikTok接种疫苗的用户不太可能变得犹豫或抗拒。犹豫不决的Facebook和Instagram用户更有可能成为专业人士。对于那些不信任政府的人来说,一些社交媒体平台可能与疫苗接种偏好有更积极的联系。结论:这篇论文为更广泛的文献做出了贡献,这些文献表明,社交媒体可能与强化支持和反对疫苗接种的情绪有关,这些结果取决于个人从哪里获得信息以及他们对这些信息来源的信任。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Social Media and the Evolution of Vaccine Preferences During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Discrete Choice Experiment.

Background: Vaccine information and misinformation are spread through social media in ways that may vary by platform. Understanding the role social media plays in shaping vaccine preferences is crucial for policymakers and researchers.

Objective: This study aims to test whether social media use is associated with changes in vaccine preferences during the COVID-19 pandemic in New Zealand, and whether trust in sources of information has a moderating role.

Methods: Our data consist of a balanced panel of 257 web-based respondents in New Zealand in August 2020, October-November 2020, and March-April 2021. We use a novel approach with stated choice panel data to study transitions between different vaccine preference groups. We analyze the associations between these transitions and social media use. We classify respondents as resistant (never chose a vaccine), hesitant (chose a vaccine between 1 and 5 times), and provaccine (chose a vaccine 6 out of 6 times) in each wave of data.

Results: We found a positive or neutral association between social media use and vaccine uptake. Facebook, Twitter (pre-2022), and TikTok users who are provaccine are less likely to become hesitant or resistant. Facebook and Instagram users who are hesitant are more likely to become pro. Some social media platforms may have a more positive association with vaccine uptake preferences for those who do not trust the government.

Conclusions: The paper contributes to the wider literature, which shows social media can be associated with reinforcing both pro and antivaccination sentiment, and these results depend on where individuals get their information from and their trust in such sources.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信