4.2 Article

Exploring content of misinformation about HPV vaccine on twitter

Journal

JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE
Volume 46, Issue 1-2, Pages 239-252

Publisher

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10865-022-00342-1

Keywords

HPV vaccine; Disinformation; Misinformation; Vaccine hesitancy; Adolescent health; Social media

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Nearly a quarter of #HPV Tweets contain disinformation or misinformation about the HPV vaccine, with adverse health effects, mandatory vaccination, and vaccine inefficacy being the most prevalent categories. These misleading tweets are more likely to be retweeted than supportive tweets.
Although social media can be a source of guidance about HPV vaccination for parents, the information may not always be complete or accurate. We conducted a retrospective content analysis to identify content and frequencies of occurrence of disinformation and misinformation about HPV vaccine posted on Twitter between December 15, 2019, through March 31, 2020, among 3876 unique, English language #HPV Tweets, excluding retweets. We found that 24% of Tweets contained disinformation or misinformation, and the remaining 76% contained support/education. The most prevalent categories of disinformation/misinformation were (1) adverse health effects (59%), (2) mandatory vaccination (19%), and (3) inefficacy of the vaccine (14%). Among the adverse health effects Tweets, non-specific harm/injury (51%) and death (23%) were most frequent. Disinformation/misinformation Tweets vs. supportive Tweets had 5.44 (95% CI 5.33-5.56) times the incidence rate of retweet. In conclusion, almost one-quarter of #HPV Tweets contained disinformation or misinformation about the HPV vaccine and these tweets received higher audience engagement including likes and retweets. Implications for vaccine hesitancy are discussed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available