COVID-19 Vaccine Information and Infertility Posts on X: Insights on a Misinformation Pandemic.

Q2 Social Sciences The Permanente journal Pub Date : 2024-06-14 Epub Date: 2024-05-03 DOI:10.7812/TPP/23.142
Morgan S Levy, Kelby N Hunt, Sarah Rinehart, Alyssa D Brown, Amelia G Kelly, Padmaja Sundaram, Alisha Crump, Tiffany J Sinclair, Kally Dey, Alexander Zoroufy, Alberto J Caban-Martinez, Torie Comeaux Plowden
{"title":"COVID-19 Vaccine Information and Infertility Posts on X: Insights on a Misinformation Pandemic.","authors":"Morgan S Levy, Kelby N Hunt, Sarah Rinehart, Alyssa D Brown, Amelia G Kelly, Padmaja Sundaram, Alisha Crump, Tiffany J Sinclair, Kally Dey, Alexander Zoroufy, Alberto J Caban-Martinez, Torie Comeaux Plowden","doi":"10.7812/TPP/23.142","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate misinformation surrounding infertility and the COVID-19 vaccine on X (formerly known as Twitter) by analyzing the prevalence and content of this misinformation across a sample of posts on X.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study is a retrospective review of posts on X (formerly known as tweets) from the COVID-19-TweetIDs dataset from July 2021 and November 2021. Included posts were from crucial time points in the COVID-19 vaccine discourse and contained at least one word related to COVID-19 vaccination and fertility. Posts were analyzed and categorized based on factuality, common words, and hashtags. Descriptive statistics on total followers, account verification status, and engagement were obtained. Differences between posts on X classified as factual and misinformation were examined using analysis of variance or χ<sup>2</sup> tests. Sentiment analysis determined if post content was generally positive, neutral, or negative.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 17,418 relevant posts on X were reviewed: 11,436 from timeframe 1 (July 2021) and 5982 from timeframe 2 (December 2021). Misinformation posts rose from 29.9% in July 2021 to 45.1% in November 2021. In both timeframes, accounts sharing factual information had more followers (p < 0.001), and verified users were more likely to share accurate posts (p ≤ 0.001). Factual and misinformation posts had similar engagement. Sentiment analysis identified that real posts were more positive and misinformation posts were more negative (p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>Misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine and fertility is highly prevalent on X and threatens vaccine uptake in patients desiring future fertility. Accounts sharing factual information were likely to have more followers and be verified; therefore, verifying more physicians sharing accurate information is critical.</p>","PeriodicalId":23037,"journal":{"name":"The Permanente journal","volume":" ","pages":"47-54"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11232903/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Permanente journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7812/TPP/23.142","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate misinformation surrounding infertility and the COVID-19 vaccine on X (formerly known as Twitter) by analyzing the prevalence and content of this misinformation across a sample of posts on X.

Methods: This study is a retrospective review of posts on X (formerly known as tweets) from the COVID-19-TweetIDs dataset from July 2021 and November 2021. Included posts were from crucial time points in the COVID-19 vaccine discourse and contained at least one word related to COVID-19 vaccination and fertility. Posts were analyzed and categorized based on factuality, common words, and hashtags. Descriptive statistics on total followers, account verification status, and engagement were obtained. Differences between posts on X classified as factual and misinformation were examined using analysis of variance or χ2 tests. Sentiment analysis determined if post content was generally positive, neutral, or negative.

Results: A total of 17,418 relevant posts on X were reviewed: 11,436 from timeframe 1 (July 2021) and 5982 from timeframe 2 (December 2021). Misinformation posts rose from 29.9% in July 2021 to 45.1% in November 2021. In both timeframes, accounts sharing factual information had more followers (p < 0.001), and verified users were more likely to share accurate posts (p ≤ 0.001). Factual and misinformation posts had similar engagement. Sentiment analysis identified that real posts were more positive and misinformation posts were more negative (p < 0.001).

Conclusions and relevance: Misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine and fertility is highly prevalent on X and threatens vaccine uptake in patients desiring future fertility. Accounts sharing factual information were likely to have more followers and be verified; therefore, verifying more physicians sharing accurate information is critical.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
COVID-19 X 上的疫苗信息和不孕不育帖子:对误导信息流行的见解。
研究目的本研究旨在通过分析 X(以前称为推特)上的帖子样本中围绕不孕症和 COVID-19 疫苗的错误信息的流行程度和内容,对这些错误信息进行评估:本研究是对 COVID-19-TweetIDs 数据集中 2021 年 7 月至 2021 年 11 月期间 X 上帖子(以前称为推文)的回顾性审查。纳入的帖子来自 COVID-19 疫苗讨论的关键时间点,至少包含一个与 COVID-19 疫苗接种和生育相关的词。我们根据事实性、常用词和标签对帖子进行了分析和分类。我们获得了关于粉丝总数、账户验证状态和参与度的描述性统计。使用方差分析或 χ2 检验法检查了 X 上被归类为事实信息和错误信息的帖子之间的差异。情感分析确定帖子内容总体上是积极的、中性的还是消极的:共审查了 17,418 篇关于 X 的相关帖子:时间框架 1(2021 年 7 月)中的 11436 个帖子和时间框架 2(2021 年 12 月)中的 5982 个帖子。错误信息帖子从 2021 年 7 月的 29.9%上升到 2021 年 11 月的 45.1%。在这两个时间框架内,分享事实信息的账号拥有更多粉丝(p < 0.001),而经过验证的用户更有可能分享准确的帖子(p ≤ 0.001)。事实帖子和错误信息帖子的参与度相似。情感分析显示,真实帖子更积极,而错误信息帖子更消极(p < 0.001):关于 COVID-19 疫苗和生育的错误信息在 X 上非常普遍,威胁着希望未来生育的患者对疫苗的接受。分享真实信息的账户可能拥有更多的追随者并得到验证;因此,验证更多分享准确信息的医生至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
The Permanente journal
The Permanente journal Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
86
期刊最新文献
Survey of Orthopedic Surgeons' Perceptions of Adopting an Initiative With Cemented Hip Hemiarthroplasties for Fractures. Impact of the Graphic Memoir My Degeneration: A Journey Through Parkinson's on Patients With Parkinson's Disease: A Mixed Methods Study. A Comparison of In-Person and Telemedicine Triage in Otolaryngology. Delusional Parasitosis in a Patient With a History of COVID-19 and Substance Use Disorder. Erratum to Vitamin D Deficiency-Associated Neuropathic Pain Examined in a Chronic Pain Management Program.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1