Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Media studies are important for vaccine hesitancy research, as they analyze how the media shapes risk perceptions and vaccine uptake. Despite the growth in studies in this field owing to advances in computing and language processing and an expanding social media landscape, no study has consolidated the methodological approaches used to study vaccine hesitancy. Synthesizing this information can better structure and set a precedent for this growing subfield of digital epidemiology. Objective: This review aimed to identify and illustrate the media platforms and methods used to study vaccine hesitancy and how they build or contribute to the study of the media's influence on vaccine hesitancy and public health. Methods: This study followed the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. A search was conducted on PubMed and Scopus for any studies that used media data (social media or traditional media), had an outcome related to vaccine sentiment (opinion, uptake, hesitancy, acceptance, or stance), were written in English, and were published after 2010. Studies were screened by only 1 reviewer and extracted for media platform, analysis method, the theoretical models used, and outcomes. Results: In total, 125 studies were included, of which 71 (56.8%) used traditional research methods and 54 (43.2%) used computational methods. Of the traditional methods, most used content analysis (43/71, 61%) and sentiment analysis (21/71, 30%) to analyze the texts. The most common platforms were newspapers, print media, and web-based news. The computational methods mostly used sentiment analysis (31/54, 57%), topic modeling (18/54, 33%), and network analysis (17/54, 31%). Fewer studies used projections (2/54, 4%) and feature extraction (1/54, 2%). The most common platforms were Twitter and Facebook. Theoretically, most studies were weak. The following five major categories of studies arose: antivaccination themes centered on the distrust of institutions, civil liberties, misinformation, conspiracy theories, and vaccine-specific concerns; provaccination themes centered on ensuring vaccine safety using scientific literature; framing being important and health professionals and personal stories having the largest impact on shaping vaccine opinion; the coverage of vaccination-related data mostly identifying negative vaccine content and revealing deeply fractured vaccine communities and echo chambers; and the public reacting to and focusing on certain signals-in particular cases, deaths, and scandals-which suggests a more volatile period for the spread of information. Conclusions: The heterogeneity in the use of media to study vaccines can be better consolidated through theoretical grounding. Areas of suggested research include understanding how trust in institutions is associated with vaccine uptake, how misinformation and information signaling influence vaccine uptake, and the evaluation of government communications on vaccine rollouts and vaccine-related events. The review ends with a statement that media data analyses, though groundbreaking in approach, should supplement-not supplant-current practices in public health research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.033 | 0.198 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.033 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".