ABSTRACT
The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the importance of large-scale campaigns to facilitate vaccination adherence. Social media presents unique opportunities to reach broader audiences and reduces the costs of conducting national or global campaigns aimed at achieving herd immunity. Nonetheless, few studies have reviewed the effectiveness of prior social media campaigns for vaccination adherence, and several prior studies have shown that social media campaigns do not increase uptake rates. Hence, our objective is to conduct a systematic review to examine the effectiveness of social media campaigns and to identify the reasons for the mixed results of prior studies. Our methodology began with a search of seven databases, which resulted in the identification of 92 interventions conducted over digital media. Out of these 92 studies, only 15 adopted social media campaigns for immunization. We analyzed these 15 studies, along with a coding scheme we developed based on reviews of both health interventions and social media campaigns. Multiple coders, who were knowledgeable about social media campaigns and healthcare, analyzed the 15 cases and obtained an acceptable level of inter-coder reliability (> .80). The results from our systematic review show that only a few social media campaigns have succeeded in enhancing vaccination adherence. In addition, few campaigns have utilized known critical success factors of social media to induce vaccination adherence. Based on these findings, we discuss a set of research questions that informatics scholars should consider when identifying opportunities for using social media to resolve one of the most resilient challenges in public health. Finally, we conclude by discussing how the insights drawn from our systematic reviews contribute to advancing theories, such as social influence and the health belief model, into the realm of social media-based health interventions.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Despite numerous counteracting efforts, antivaccine content linked to delays and refusals to vaccinate has grown persistently on social media, while only a few provaccine campaigns have succeeded in engaging with or persuading the public to accept immunization. Many prior studies have associated the diversity of topics discussed by antivaccine advocates with the public's higher engagement with such content. Nonetheless, a comprehensive comparison of discursive topics in pro- and antivaccine content in the engagement-persuasion spectrum remains unexplored. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare discursive topics chosen by pro- and antivaccine advocates in their attempts to influence the public to accept or reject immunization in the engagement-persuasion spectrum. Our overall objective was pursued through three specific aims as follows: (1) we classified vaccine-related tweets into provaccine, antivaccine, and neutral categories; (2) we extracted and visualized discursive topics from these tweets to explain disparities in engagement between pro- and antivaccine content; and (3) we identified how those topics frame vaccines using Entman's four framing dimensions. METHODS: We adopted a multimethod approach to analyze discursive topics in the vaccine debate on public social media sites. Our approach combined (1) large-scale balanced data collection from a public social media site (ie, 39,962 tweets from Twitter); (2) the development of a supervised classification algorithm for categorizing tweets into provaccine, antivaccine, and neutral groups; (3) the application of an unsupervised clustering algorithm for identifying prominent topics discussed on both sides; and (4) a multistep qualitative content analysis for identifying the prominent discursive topics and how vaccines are framed in these topics. In so doing, we alleviated methodological challenges that have hindered previous analyses of pro- and antivaccine discursive topics. RESULTS: Our results indicated that antivaccine topics have greater intertopic distinctiveness (ie, the degree to which discursive topics are distinct from one another) than their provaccine counterparts (t122=2.30, P=.02). In addition, while antivaccine advocates use all four message frames known to make narratives persuasive and influential, provaccine advocates have neglected having a clear problem statement. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our results, we attribute higher engagement among antivaccine advocates to the distinctiveness of the topics they discuss, and we ascribe the influence of the vaccine debate on uptake rates to the comprehensiveness of the message frames. These results show the urgency of developing clear problem statements for provaccine content to counteract the negative impact of antivaccine content on uptake rates.
