9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
      - celebrating 25 years of open access

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Methods for Social Media Monitoring Related to Vaccination: Systematic Scoping Review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Social media has changed the communication landscape, exposing individuals to an ever-growing amount of information while also allowing them to create and share content. Although vaccine skepticism is not new, social media has amplified public concerns and facilitated their spread globally. Multiple studies have been conducted to monitor vaccination discussions on social media. However, there is currently insufficient evidence on the best methods to perform social media monitoring.

          Objective

          The aim of this study was to identify the methods most commonly used for monitoring vaccination-related topics on different social media platforms, along with their effectiveness and limitations.

          Methods

          A systematic scoping review was conducted by applying a comprehensive search strategy to multiple databases in December 2018. The articles’ titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened by two reviewers using inclusion and exclusion criteria. After data extraction, a descriptive analysis was performed to summarize the methods used to monitor and analyze social media, including data extraction tools; ethical considerations; search strategies; periods monitored; geolocalization of content; and sentiments, content, and reach analyses.

          Results

          This review identified 86 articles on social media monitoring of vaccination, most of which were published after 2015. Although 35 out of the 86 studies used manual browser search tools to collect data from social media, this was time-consuming and only allowed for the analysis of small samples compared to social media application program interfaces or automated monitoring tools. Although simple search strategies were considered less precise, only 10 out of the 86 studies used comprehensive lists of keywords (eg, with hashtags or words related to specific events or concerns). Partly due to privacy settings, geolocalization of data was extremely difficult to obtain, limiting the possibility of performing country-specific analyses. Finally, 20 out of the 86 studies performed trend or content analyses, whereas most of the studies (70%, 60/86) analyzed sentiments toward vaccination. Automated sentiment analyses, performed using leverage, supervised machine learning, or automated software, were fast and provided strong and accurate results. Most studies focused on negative (n=33) and positive (n=31) sentiments toward vaccination, and may have failed to capture the nuances and complexity of emotions around vaccination. Finally, 49 out of the 86 studies determined the reach of social media posts by looking at numbers of followers and engagement (eg, retweets, shares, likes).

          Conclusions

          Social media monitoring still constitutes a new means to research and understand public sentiments around vaccination. A wide range of methods are currently used by researchers. Future research should focus on evaluating these methods to offer more evidence and support the development of social media monitoring as a valuable research design.

          Related collections

          Most cited references141

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews.

            Reviews of primary research are becoming more common as evidence-based practice gains recognition as the benchmark for care, and the number of, and access to, primary research sources has grown. One of the newer review types is the 'scoping review'. In general, scoping reviews are commonly used for 'reconnaissance' - to clarify working definitions and conceptual boundaries of a topic or field. Scoping reviews are therefore particularly useful when a body of literature has not yet been comprehensively reviewed, or exhibits a complex or heterogeneous nature not amenable to a more precise systematic review of the evidence. While scoping reviews may be conducted to determine the value and probable scope of a full systematic review, they may also be undertaken as exercises in and of themselves to summarize and disseminate research findings, to identify research gaps, and to make recommendations for the future research. This article briefly introduces the reader to scoping reviews, how they are different to systematic reviews, and why they might be conducted. The methodology and guidance for the conduct of systematic scoping reviews outlined below was developed by members of the Joanna Briggs Institute and members of five Joanna Briggs Collaborating Centres.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                JMIR Public Health Surveill
                JMIR Public Health Surveill
                JPH
                JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
                JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )
                2369-2960
                February 2021
                8 February 2021
                : 7
                : 2
                : e17149
                Affiliations
                [1 ] London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Vaccine Confidence Project London United Kingdom
                [2 ] European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control Stockhom Sweden
                [3 ] Centre for Social Sciences Hungarian Academy of Sciences Budapest Hungary
                [4 ] Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation University of Washington Seattle, WA United States
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Emilie Karafillakis emilie.karafillakis@ 123456lshtm.ac.uk
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8648-906X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4466-8374
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0035-8419
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8398-2470
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7509-0739
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3910-1856
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8477-7583
                Article
                v7i2e17149
                10.2196/17149
                7899807
                33555267
                bacb78ea-e934-476b-be65-a9e5c45e1bb9
                ©Emilie Karafillakis, Sam Martin, Clarissa Simas, Kate Olsson, Judit Takacs, Sara Dada, Heidi Jane Larson. Originally published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance (http://publichealth.jmir.org), 08.02.2021.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://publichealth.jmir.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

                History
                : 21 November 2019
                : 17 September 2020
                : 5 November 2020
                : 17 December 2020
                Categories
                Review
                Review

                vaccination,antivaccination movement,vaccination refusal,social media,internet,research design,review,media monitoring,social listening,infodemiology,infoveillance

                Comments

                Comment on this article