Methods for Social Media Monitoring Related to Vaccination: Systematic Scoping Review - PubMed (original) (raw)

Emilie Karafillakis et al. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2021.

Abstract

Background: Social media has changed the communication landscape, exposing individuals to an ever-growing amount of information while also allowing them to create and share content. Although vaccine skepticism is not new, social media has amplified public concerns and facilitated their spread globally. Multiple studies have been conducted to monitor vaccination discussions on social media. However, there is currently insufficient evidence on the best methods to perform social media monitoring.

Objective: The aim of this study was to identify the methods most commonly used for monitoring vaccination-related topics on different social media platforms, along with their effectiveness and limitations.

Methods: A systematic scoping review was conducted by applying a comprehensive search strategy to multiple databases in December 2018. The articles' titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened by two reviewers using inclusion and exclusion criteria. After data extraction, a descriptive analysis was performed to summarize the methods used to monitor and analyze social media, including data extraction tools; ethical considerations; search strategies; periods monitored; geolocalization of content; and sentiments, content, and reach analyses.

Results: This review identified 86 articles on social media monitoring of vaccination, most of which were published after 2015. Although 35 out of the 86 studies used manual browser search tools to collect data from social media, this was time-consuming and only allowed for the analysis of small samples compared to social media application program interfaces or automated monitoring tools. Although simple search strategies were considered less precise, only 10 out of the 86 studies used comprehensive lists of keywords (eg, with hashtags or words related to specific events or concerns). Partly due to privacy settings, geolocalization of data was extremely difficult to obtain, limiting the possibility of performing country-specific analyses. Finally, 20 out of the 86 studies performed trend or content analyses, whereas most of the studies (70%, 60/86) analyzed sentiments toward vaccination. Automated sentiment analyses, performed using leverage, supervised machine learning, or automated software, were fast and provided strong and accurate results. Most studies focused on negative (n=33) and positive (n=31) sentiments toward vaccination, and may have failed to capture the nuances and complexity of emotions around vaccination. Finally, 49 out of the 86 studies determined the reach of social media posts by looking at numbers of followers and engagement (eg, retweets, shares, likes).

Conclusions: Social media monitoring still constitutes a new means to research and understand public sentiments around vaccination. A wide range of methods are currently used by researchers. Future research should focus on evaluating these methods to offer more evidence and support the development of social media monitoring as a valuable research design.

Keywords: antivaccination movement; infodemiology; infoveillance; internet; media monitoring; research design; review; social listening; social media; vaccination; vaccination refusal.

©Emilie Karafillakis, Sam Martin, Clarissa Simas, Kate Olsson, Judit Takacs, Sara Dada, Heidi Jane Larson. Originally published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance (http://publichealth.jmir.org), 08.02.2021.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: The LSHTM research group “The Vaccine Confidence Project” has received funding for other projects from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI), National Institute for Health Research (UK), the World Health Organization, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Novartis, Johnson & Johnson, and Merck. HJL has done consulting on vaccine confidence with GSK and served on the Merck Vaccine Strategic Advisory Board. EK has received support for participating in meetings and advisory roundtables organised by GSK and Merck. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1

The three-step model of social media monitoring.

Figure 2

Figure 2

PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flowchart.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Poland GA, Jacobson RM. The age-old struggle against the antivaccinationists. N Engl J Med. 2011 Jan 13;364(2):97–99. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1010594. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Stahl JP, Cohen R, Denis F, Gaudelus J, Martinot A, Lery T, Lepetit H. The impact of the web and social networks on vaccination. New challenges and opportunities offered to fight against vaccine hesitancy. Med Mal Infect. 2016 May;46(3):117–122. doi: 10.1016/j.medmal.2016.02.002. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Larson HJ, de Figueiredo A, Xiahong Z, Schulz WS, Verger P, Johnston IG, Cook AR, Jones NS. The State of Vaccine Confidence 2016: Global Insights Through a 67-Country Survey. EBioMedicine. 2016 Oct;12:295–301. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2016.08.042. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2352-3964(16)30398-X - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Larson HJ, Bertozzi S, Piot P. Redesigning the AIDS response for long-term impact. Bull World Health Organ. 2011 Nov 01;89(11):846–852. doi: 10.2471/BLT.11.087114. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/22084531 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Yaqub O, Castle-Clarke S, Sevdalis N, Chataway J. Attitudes to vaccination: a critical review. Soc Sci Med. 2014 Jul;112:1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.04.018. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0277-9536(14)00242-1 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources