Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorSkafle, Ingjerd
dc.contributor.authorNordahl-Hansen, Anders
dc.contributor.authorQuintana, Daniel
dc.contributor.authorWynn, Rolf
dc.contributor.authorGabarron, Elia
dc.date.accessioned2022-09-05T13:26:26Z
dc.date.available2022-09-05T13:26:26Z
dc.date.created2022-07-08T11:27:22Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Medical Internet Research. 2022, 24 (8), Artikkel e37367.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1438-8871
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/3015840
dc.description.abstractBackground: The development of COVID-19 vaccines has been crucial in fighting the pandemic. However, misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccines is spread on social media platforms at a rate that has made the World Health Organization coin the phrase infodemic. False claims about adverse vaccine side effects, such as vaccines being the cause of autism, were already considered a threat to global health before the outbreak of COVID-19. Objective: We aimed to synthesize the existing research on misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines spread on social media platforms and its effects. The secondary aim was to gain insight and gather knowledge about whether misinformation about autism and COVID-19 vaccines is being spread on social media platforms. Methods: We performed a literature search on September 9, 2021, and searched PubMed, PsycINFO, ERIC, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register. We included publications in peer-reviewed journals that fulfilled the following criteria: original empirical studies, studies that assessed social media and misinformation, and studies about COVID-19 vaccines. Thematic analysis was used to identify the patterns (themes) of misinformation. Narrative qualitative synthesis was undertaken with the guidance of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 Statement and the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis reporting guideline. The risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool. Ratings of the certainty of evidence were based on recommendations from the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group. Results: The search yielded 757 records, with 45 articles selected for this review. We identified 3 main themes of misinformation: medical misinformation, vaccine development, and conspiracies. Twitter was the most studied social media platform, followed by Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram. A vast majority of studies were from industrialized Western countries. We identified 19 studies in which the effect of social media misinformation on vaccine hesitancy was measured or discussed. These studies implied that the misinformation spread on social media had a negative effect on vaccine hesitancy and uptake. Only 1 study contained misinformation about autism as a side effect of COVID-19 vaccines. Conclusions: To prevent these misconceptions from taking hold, health authorities should openly address and discuss these false claims with both cultural and religious awareness in mind. Our review showed that there is a need to examine the effect of social media misinformation on vaccine hesitancy with a more robust experimental design. Furthermore, this review also demonstrated that more studies are needed from the Global South and on social media platforms other than the major platforms such as Twitter and Facebook.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherJMIR Publicationsen_US
dc.rightsNavngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no*
dc.subjectsocial mediaen_US
dc.subjectmisinformationen_US
dc.subjectCOVID-19 vaccinesen_US
dc.subjectvaccination hesitancyen_US
dc.subjectautism spectrum disorderen_US
dc.titleMisinformation about Covid-19 Vaccines on Social Media: Rapid Reviewen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.rights.holder©Ingjerd Skafle, Anders Nordahl-Hansen, Daniel S Quintana, Rolf Wynn, Elia Gabarron. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 04.08.2022.en_US
dc.subject.nsiVDP::Medisinske Fag: 700::Helsefag: 800en_US
dc.subject.nsiVDP::Samfunnsvitenskap: 200::Biblioteks- og informasjonsvitenskap: 320::Informasjonspolitikk: 322en_US
dc.source.volume24en_US
dc.source.journalJournal of Medical Internet Researchen_US
dc.source.issue8en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.2196/37367
dc.identifier.cristin2037687
dc.source.articlenumbere37367en_US
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode2


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Med mindre annet er angitt, så er denne innførselen lisensiert som Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal