| Literature DB >> 26063290 |
Adam G Dunn1, Julie Leask, Xujuan Zhou, Kenneth D Mandl, Enrico Coiera.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: 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.Entities:
Keywords: HPV vaccines; Twitter messaging; public health surveillance; social media; social networks
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26063290 PMCID: PMC4526932 DOI: 10.2196/jmir.4343
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Internet Res ISSN: 1438-8871 Impact factor: 5.428
Examples of different classes of Twitter messages identified in the searches.
| Classification | Twitter message text |
| Positive | “HPV vaccination has the potential to reduce cervical cancer deaths worldwide by as much as two-thirds. [URL removed]” |
| Positive | “Oral sex & male gender indep assoc with oral HPV infection: shows need for HPV vaccination of boys. #endhpv New study [URL removed]” |
| Neutral | “Potential of the quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine in the prevention and treatment of cervical cancer [URL removed]” |
| Negative | “Gardasil has generated nearly 30,000 adverse reaction reports to US govt, including 140 deaths [URL removed] #vaxfax” |
| Negative | “Lead Developer of HPV Vaccine Warns Parents Young Girls It’s a Giant Deadly Scam [URL removed]” |
| Negative | “Young woman’s ovaries destroyed by Gardasil: Merck ‘forgot to research’ effects of vaccine [URL removed]” |
Figure 1The number of tweets posted each day during the data collection period, including tweets rejecting the safety or value of HPV vaccines (orange) and all other HPV vaccine tweets (cyan). Gray vertical lines indicate Sundays. No corrections for time zone differences were applied.
Figure 2The ordered distribution of tweets per user related to HPV vaccines posted to Twitter between October 1, 2013 and March 31, 2014. Each user’s number of tweets is represented by a dot and illustrated separately for users that posted a majority of negative tweets (orange) and all other users (cyan).
Figure 3The ordered distribution of users according to the total follower counts (left) and follower counts within the network of 30,621 users (right). Each user is represented by a dot and colored by users that tweeted mostly negative tweets (orange) compared to all other users (cyan). The vertical axes are zero-adjusted to accommodate users that had zero followers.
Figure 4The network of 30,621 users that tweeted about HPV vaccines during the period between October 2013 and April 2014 organized via heuristic so that users are closer to other users with whom they are connected. The sizes of the nodes are proportional to the number of followers within the network. Users are colored according to information exposure (orange: those exposed to a majority of negative opinions; cyan: users that were exposed to mostly neutral/positive tweets; gray: users not exposed to HPV vaccine tweets).