User-driven comments on a Facebook advertisement recruiting Canadian parents in a study on immunization: Content Analysis (Preprint)

Abstract

Background: More people are searching for immunization information online and potentially being exposed to misinformation and anti-vaccine sentiment via content and discussions on social media platforms. As vaccination coverage rates remain sub-optimal in several developed countries, and outbreaks of vaccine preventable diseases [VPDs] become more prevalent, it is important that we build on previous research by analyzing themes in online vaccination discussions, including those that individuals may see without actively searching for information on immunization. Objective: The study aimed to explore the sentiments and themes behind an unsolicited debate on immunization in order to better inform public health interventions countering anti-vaccine sentiment. Methods: We analyzed and quantified 117 user-driven open-ended comments on immunization posted in the 'Comments' section of a Facebook advertisement that targeted Canadian parents for recruitment into a larger study on immunization. Two raters coded all comments using content analysis. Conclusions:The large number of unsolicited user-driven comments on a platform not intended for discussion nor providing any information on immunization, illustrates the strong sentiments associated with immunization, and the arbitrariness of the online platforms used for immunization debates. Health authorities should be more pro-active in refuting misinformation and misperceptions currently propagating uncontested online. Online debates and communications on immunization need to be identified by continuous monitoring in order for health authorities to understand the current themes and trends, and to engage in the discussion.

News media stories about cancer on Facebook: How does story framing influence response framing, tone and attributions of responsibility?

“…Many of the comments that directed blame attributions at a societal level focused on 'big pharma' trying to make money and hide natural treatments and cures for cancer. These results were similar to a recent study which also found a theme of distrust in pharmaceutical companies on Facebook posts about immunisations (Tustin et al, 2018). Other environmental causes for cancer such as chemical exposure and air pollution were also mentioned in comments.…”

“…On the one hand, sharing advice in Facebook comments has the potential to help other people with cancer and to enable them to build a network of support however, on the other hand, there is potential for dangerous misinformation to be spread. Although the current study did not measure comments in terms of accuracy, a recent study on immunisation posts on Facebook found that 20.8% of negative comments contained inaccurate knowledge (Tustin et al, 2018). This is particularly concerning given that previous research shows that people may trust other responders more than the advice from the media .…”

Psychological mechanisms and interventions directed at vaccination attitudes

“…The overarching beliefs discovered primarily included a distrust of the scientific community and pharmaceuticals, and the presence of superstitious and conspiratorial beliefs (Smith et al, 2004;Fowler et al, 2006;Wada and Smith, 2015;Chung et al, 2017;Carrion, 2018;Hornsey et al, 2018;Tustin et al, 2018;Bianco et al, 2019;Helps et al, 2019;Romijnders et al, 2019;Smith and Graham, 2019;Cadeddu et al, 2020;Tomljenovic et al, 2020;Dzieciolowska et al, 2021;Martinez-Berman et al, 2021;Motta et al, 2021;Murphy et al, 2021;Rozbroj et al, 2022). This finding is congruent with previous research exploring linguistic themes among social media users expressing anti-vaccination beliefs (Buchanan and Beckett, 2014;Faasse et al, 2016;Okuhara et al, 2017Okuhara et al, , 2018Smith and Graham, 2019;Dhaliwal and Mannion, 2020).…”

“…All studies included in the review were conducted between 2004 and 2021. The number of studies investigating the underlying mechanisms of anti-vaccination attitudes and beliefs was 33 (Smith et al, 2004;Fowler et al, 2006;Luyten et al, 2014;Michael et al, 2014;Wada and Smith, 2015;Reich, 2016;Amin et al, 2017;Chung et al, 2017;Bryden et al, 2018;Carrion, 2018;Hornsey et al, 2018;Motta et al, 2018Motta et al, , 2021Restivo et al, 2018;Tustin et al, 2018;Bianco et al, 2019;Carpiano et al, 2019;Helps et al, 2019;Romijnders et al, 2019;Rossen et al, 2019;Rozbroj et al, 2019aRozbroj et al, , 2020Rozbroj et al, , 2022Cadeddu et al, 2020;Goldberg and Richey, 2020;Tomljenovic et al, 2020;Dzieciolowska et al, 2021;Elkalmi et al, 2021;Freeman et al, 2021;Huynh and Senger, 2021;Martinez-Berman et al, 2021;Murphy et al, 2021). Within this subset of studies, 12 studies investigated parents as a sample (Smith et al, 2004;Reich, 2016;Amin et al, 2017;Chung et al, 2017;Carrion, 2018;Tustin et al, 2018;Bianco et al, 2019;Carp...…”

“…Additionally identified as being associated with anti-vaccination profiles were celebrity admiration (Martinez-Berman et al, 2021), religiosity (Michael et al, 2014;Rozbroj et al, 2019a;Elkalmi et al, 2021), reactance (Hornsey et al, 2018), belief in natural immunity and purity of the body (Michael et al, 2014;Reich, 2016), fear or disgust of blood needles (Hornsey et al, 2018;Freeman et al, 2021), belief as social identity (Motta et al, 2021), and low participation in political or cultural life (Cadeddu et al, 2020). Typical behaviors identified in the literature were that those that held anti-vaccination attitudes were more likely to search the internet or other sources of information rather than seek information from government or health professionals (Smith et al, 2004;Wada and Smith, 2015;Chung et al, 2017;Tustin et al, 2018;Murphy et al, 2021).…”