↓ Skip to main content

Associations Between Exposure to and Expression of Negative Opinions About Human Papillomavirus Vaccines on Social Media: An Observational Study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Internet Research, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
71 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
172 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
288 Mendeley
Title
Associations Between Exposure to and Expression of Negative Opinions About Human Papillomavirus Vaccines on Social Media: An Observational Study
Published in
Journal of Medical Internet Research, June 2015
DOI 10.2196/jmir.4343
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adam G Dunn, Julie Leask, Xujuan Zhou, Kenneth D Mandl, Enrico Coiera

Abstract

Groups and individuals that seek to negatively influence public opinion about the safety and value of vaccination are active in online and social media and may influence decision making within some communities. We sought to measure whether exposure to negative opinions about human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines in Twitter communities is associated with the subsequent expression of negative opinions by explicitly measuring potential information exposure over the social structure of Twitter communities. We hypothesized that prior exposure to opinions rejecting the safety or value of HPV vaccines would be associated with an increased risk of posting similar opinions and tested this hypothesis by analyzing temporal sequences of messages posted on Twitter (tweets). The study design was a retrospective analysis of tweets related to HPV vaccines and the social connections between users. Between October 2013 and April 2014, we collected 83,551 English-language tweets that included terms related to HPV vaccines and the 957,865 social connections among 30,621 users posting or reposting the tweets. Tweets were classified as expressing negative or neutral/positive opinions using a machine learning classifier previously trained on a manually labeled sample. During the 6-month period, 25.13% (20,994/83,551) of tweets were classified as negative; among the 30,621 users that tweeted about HPV vaccines, 9046 (29.54%) were exposed to a majority of negative tweets. The likelihood of a user posting a negative tweet after exposure to a majority of negative opinions was 37.78% (2780/7361) compared to 10.92% (1234/11,296) for users who were exposed to a majority of positive and neutral tweets corresponding to a relative risk of 3.46 (95% CI 3.25-3.67, P<.001). The heterogeneous community structure on Twitter appears to skew the information to which users are exposed in relation to HPV vaccines. We found that among users that tweeted about HPV vaccines, those who were more often exposed to negative opinions were more likely to subsequently post negative opinions. Although this research may be useful for identifying individuals and groups currently at risk of disproportionate exposure to misinformation about HPV vaccines, there is a clear need for studies capable of determining the factors that affect the formation and adoption of beliefs about public health interventions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 71 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 288 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 287 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 59 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 46 16%
Researcher 28 10%
Student > Bachelor 26 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 6%
Other 53 18%
Unknown 60 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 16%
Social Sciences 42 15%
Psychology 26 9%
Computer Science 20 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 7%
Other 57 20%
Unknown 79 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 97. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 June 2022.
All research outputs
#370,821
of 23,001,641 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Internet Research
#244
of 6,799 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,354
of 267,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Internet Research
#3
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,001,641 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,799 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,044 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.