4.4 Review

Social media strategies to affect vaccine acceptance: a systematic literature review

期刊

EXPERT REVIEW OF VACCINES
卷 20, 期 8, 页码 959-973

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14760584.2021.1949292

关键词

New media; social media; vaccine acceptance; vaccine communication; vaccine hesitancy

资金

  1. Sabin Vaccine Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study focused on the influence of social media on vaccine acceptance or hesitancy, and suggests that social media may play a crucial role in influencing vaccine decision-making in the future.
Introduction: Vaccine hesitancy, defined as a delay in the acceptance or the refusal of vaccines despite their availability, is a growing global threat. More individuals are turning to social media for health information, including vaccine information. As such, there is an opportunity to leverage online platforms as a means to disseminate and persuade individuals toward vaccine acceptance. We sought to review literature focused on the influence of exposure to social media content on vaccine acceptance or hesitancy. Areas covered: This review focused on social networking sites (e.g. Facebook) and content communities (e.g. YouTube), to understand how exposure to vaccine information affected vaccine knowledge, attitudes, and intentions/behaviors. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and Inspec. We included English-language materials published from 2004 to 2020 and included interventional studies, observational studies, and impacts of policies. We excluded systematic reviews, protocols, editorials, letters, case reports, case studies, commentaries, opinion pieces, narrative reviews, and clinical guidelines. Expert opinion: Social media interventions to affect vaccine acceptance is a new but growing area of study. How a communication message is framed, who delivers the message, and network structure are critical for affecting the vaccine decision-making process. Social media should be leveraged to impact vaccine uptake.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据