“To each his own”: Discussions of vaccine decision-making in top parenting blogs

Abstract

Although social media provides a way for people to congregate with like-minded others, it can also play a role in spreading misinformation about public health interventions. Previous research demonstrates that parents who use the Internet to gather information on vaccination are more likely to hold anti-vaccination beliefs. There has been little examination of vaccination decision-making discussions on parenting blogs. This study seeks to fill that gap. Posts and comments on the top 25 top parenting blogs were analyzed using a mixed-method approach. Comments were analyzed using deductive coding scheme that examined whether content areas of interest were present or absent in vaccination discussions. Posts were coded inductively using a thematic analysis. Posts and comments were further coded as strongly vaccine-discouraging, vaccine-ambivalent, or strongly vaccine-encouraging. Finally, posts were grouped by year of publication and comments were analyzed within each group to examine the evolution of vaccination decision-making discussions in the parenting blogosphere over the past decade. Fifty-two percent of posts were categorized as strongly vaccine-discouraging and were most commonly associated with expressions of individual liberty. Comments were nearly 3 times as likely to strongly discourage vaccination than to strongly encourage it. Comments on the oldest posts (2006–2009), were more likely to strongly discourage vaccination (p = 0.008), whereas comments on newer posts (2013–2015), were more likely to strongly encourage vaccination (p = 0.003). These findings suggest there is a need for public health professionals to understand the concerns being expressed in these forums, and develop innovative ways to dispel anti-vaccination myths, as these views may create obstacles in the meeting the goals of the public health agenda.

Investigating Italian parents' vaccine hesitancy: A cross-sectional survey

“…Previous research examining this type of information, concerning vaccines, demonstrated that many blog posts and subsequent comments take an anti-vaccination standpoint although the overall quality of pro-vaccination webpages is superior to anti-vaccination online sources. [54][55][56] There were some potential limitations of the current study that must take into account in the interpretation of the results. Firstly, although the associations between the main explanatory variables and the different outcomes of interest were identified, caution should be taken into account when interpreting the results owing to the cross-sectional study design applied, which limited us from making any conclusion on causal relationship between these factors.…”

Social media and vaccine hesitancy: new updates for the era of COVID-19 and globalized infectious diseases

“…21,23 In contrast to traditional media, content posted need not undergo editorial curation nor scientific vetting, and may represent a more complex mixture of evidence and personal opinion. 24,25 Further, users frequently maintain anonymity, allowing individuals to express their views unadulterated. 26 Social media is also characterized by its potential to reach large audiences and propagate information very rapidly.…”

Lyme disease prevention: A content analysis of Canadian patient group and government websites

“…The quality of health information available online pertaining to specific issues (e.g. HIV/AIDS, vaccination, venomous snake bites) has been extensively evaluated (Barker, Charlton, & Holstege, ; Faasse, Chatman, & Martin, ; Kalichman et al, ; Kata, ; Meleo‐Erwin, Basch, MacLean, Scheibner, & Cadorett, ; Seeman, Ing, & Rizo, ), with many studies highlighting gaps in the information provided (Parvizi, Talai, & Parvizi, ). The variability and relative utility of some assessment tools have also been noted (Beaunoyer et al, ; Fahy, Hardikar, Fox, & Mackay, ).…”