Information in Spanish on YouTube about Covid-19 vaccines

Hernández-García, Ignacio; Gascón-Giménez, Irene; Gascón-Giménez, Alba; Giménez-Júlvez, Teresa

doi:10.1080/21645515.2021.1957416

Cited by 10 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the 45 included studies, 18 (40%) studies reported misinformation across all 3 categories [ 27 - 29 , 35 - 37 , 45 , 48 , 49 , 51 , 55 , 57 , 58 , 60 - 62 , 67 , 68 ], 9 (20%) studies reported only on conspiracies [ 26 , 30 , 33 , 42 , 44 , 46 , 53 , 54 , 56 ], 6 (13%) studies were concerned specifically with medical misinformation [ 25 , 34 , 38 , 43 , 63 , 64 ], and 12 (27%) studies reported on COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or antivaccine discourse without going into further detail [ 31 , 35 , 39 - 41 , 47 , 52 , 59 , 65 , 66 , 69 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Chan et al [ 47 ] examined 48 COVID-19 vaccine–related videos on YouTube in December 2020 and found only 2 videos (4.2%) that made nonfactual claims. Hernández-García et al [ 54 ] also examined YouTube videos during February 2021 and found that only 2 out of 110 videos contained COVID-19 vaccine hoaxes or conspiracy theories. Pascual-Ferrá et al [ 64 ] examined social media data from Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, and YouTube and did not find evidence of the dominance of misinformation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The risk of bias in 53% (24/45) of the included studies was classified as low, according to the JBI Critical Appraisal tool [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][47][48][49][50][51][52]. In total, 18% (8/45) of the studies showed a moderate risk of bias [43][44][45][46][53][54][55][56]. Finally, 27% (12/45) of the included studies showed a high risk of bias [57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68].…”

Section: Study Selection and Risk Of Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Figure 3 provides an overview of the 3 overarching themes of misinformation identified from the thematic analysis, and examples from the data extraction and codes that laid ground for the final 3 themes are seen in the inner circles of the figure. Of the 45 included studies, 18 (40%) studies reported misinformation across all 3 categories [27-29,35-37, 45,48,49,51,55,57, 58,60-62,67,68], 9 (20%) studies reported only on conspiracies[26,30,33,42,44,46,53,54,56], 6 (13%) studies were concerned specifically with medical misinformation[25,34,38,43,63,64], and 12 (27%) studies reported on COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or antivaccine discourse without going into further detail[31,35,[39][40][41]47,52,59,65,66,69].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Misinformation About COVID-19 Vaccines on Social Media: Rapid Review

Skafle¹,

Nordahl‐Hansen²,

Quintana³

et al. 2022

J Med Internet Res

160

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The development of COVID-19 vaccines has been crucial in fighting the pandemic. However, misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccines is spread on social media platforms at a rate that has made the World Health Organization coin the phrase infodemic. False claims about adverse vaccine side effects, such as vaccines being the cause of autism, were already considered a threat to global health before the outbreak of COVID-19. Objective We aimed to synthesize the existing research on misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines spread on social media platforms and its effects. The secondary aim was to gain insight and gather knowledge about whether misinformation about autism and COVID-19 vaccines is being spread on social media platforms. Methods We performed a literature search on September 9, 2021, and searched PubMed, PsycINFO, ERIC, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register. We included publications in peer-reviewed journals that fulfilled the following criteria: original empirical studies, studies that assessed social media and misinformation, and studies about COVID-19 vaccines. Thematic analysis was used to identify the patterns (themes) of misinformation. Narrative qualitative synthesis was undertaken with the guidance of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 Statement and the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis reporting guideline. The risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool. Ratings of the certainty of evidence were based on recommendations from the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group. Results The search yielded 757 records, with 45 articles selected for this review. We identified 3 main themes of misinformation: medical misinformation, vaccine development, and conspiracies. Twitter was the most studied social media platform, followed by Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram. A vast majority of studies were from industrialized Western countries. We identified 19 studies in which the effect of social media misinformation on vaccine hesitancy was measured or discussed. These studies implied that the misinformation spread on social media had a negative effect on vaccine hesitancy and uptake. Only 1 study contained misinformation about autism as a side effect of COVID-19 vaccines. Conclusions To prevent these misconceptions from taking hold, health authorities should openly address and discuss these false claims with both cultural and religious awareness in mind. Our review showed that there is a need to examine the effect of social media misinformation on vaccine hesitancy with a more robust experimental design. Furthermore, this review also demonstrated that more studies are needed from the Global South and on social media platforms other than the major platforms such as Twitter and Facebook. Trial Registration PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42021277524; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021277524 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR2-10.31219/osf.io/tyevj

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Selection and Risk Of Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Misinformation About COVID-19 Vaccines on Social Media: Rapid Review

Skafle¹,

Nordahl‐Hansen²,

Quintana³

et al. 2022

J Med Internet Res

160

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Topic analysis identified various attitudes and opinions toward COVID-19 and its vaccine, with main topics focusing on vaccination policy, vaccine development, vaccine administration and access, vaccination propaganda, vaccine efficacy and side effects, vaccine hesitancy, and conspiracy theories [ 26 , 43 , 47 , 50 , 55 , 61 , 64 , 90 , 100 , 101 ]. Vaccine objection and hesitancy were generally more prevalent than vaccine support [ 57 ], although opinion patterns differed by studies.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applications of Social Media and Digital Technologies in COVID-19 Vaccination: Scoping Review

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Social media and digital technologies have played essential roles in disseminating information and promoting vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic. There is a need to summarize the applications and analytical techniques of social media and digital technologies in monitoring vaccine attitudes and administering COVID-19 vaccines. Objective We aimed to synthesize the global evidence on the applications of social media and digital technologies in COVID-19 vaccination and to explore their avenues to promote COVID-19 vaccination. Methods We searched 6 databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, EBSCO, and IEEE Xplore) for English-language articles from December 2019 to August 2022. The search terms covered keywords relating to social media, digital technology, and COVID-19 vaccines. Articles were included if they provided original descriptions of applications of social media or digital health technologies/solutions in COVID-19 vaccination. Conference abstracts, editorials, letters, commentaries, correspondence articles, study protocols, and reviews were excluded. A modified version of the Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS tool) was used to evaluate the quality of social media–related studies. The review was undertaken with the guidance of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Results A total of 178 articles were included in our review, including 114 social media articles and 64 digital technology articles. Social media has been applied for sentiment/emotion analysis, topic analysis, behavioral analysis, dissemination and engagement analysis, and information quality analysis around COVID-19 vaccination. Of these, sentiment analysis and topic analysis were the most common, with social media data being primarily analyzed by lexicon-based and machine learning techniques. The accuracy and reliability of information on social media can seriously affect public attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines, and misinformation often leads to vaccine hesitancy. Digital technologies have been applied to determine the COVID-19 vaccination strategy, predict the vaccination process, optimize vaccine distribution and delivery, provide safe and transparent vaccination certificates, and perform postvaccination surveillance. The applied digital technologies included algorithms, blockchain, mobile health, the Internet of Things, and other technologies, although with some barriers to their popularization. Conclusions The applications of social media and digital technologies in addressing COVID-19 vaccination–related issues represent an irreversible trend. Attention should be paid to the ethical issues and health inequities arising from the digital divide while applying and promoting these technologies.

show abstract