Polarization and trust in the evolution of vaccine discourse on Twitter during COVID-19

Twitter communities are associated with changing user's opinion towards COVID-19 vaccine in Japan

Despite extensive research studying the opinions on vaccination since the outbreak of COVID-19, the dynamics of temporal opinion shifts of individuals and their possible origins have been rarely studied. Here, we explore the possible influence of social interactions (retweet network) on individual's opinion shift related to vaccinations based on large-scale Twitter data in Japan. We use an opinion score which calculates the fraction of pro-, neutral and anti-vaccine tweets to measure the dynamic changes of individual opinions, and identify statistically significant communities based on retweet network. By tracking individual's dynamic opinion and its community affiliation, our study highly suggests that the opinion shifts are largely influenced by the user's Twitter community. That is, if users are within the anti-vaccine (or pro-vaccine) community, they exhibit a significantly higher likelihood of changing their position and adopt an anti-vaccine (or pro-vaccine) stance. We also find that the anti-vaccine community's influence appears to persist longer than the pro-vaccine community.

Exploring vaccine hesitancy in digital public discourse: From tribal polarization to socio-economic disparities

This study analyzed online public discourse on Twitter (later rebranded as X) during the COVID-19 pandemic to understand key factors associated with vaccine hesitancy by employing deep-learning techniques. Text classification analysis reveals a significant association between attitudes toward vaccination and the unique socio-economic characteristics of US states, such as education, race, income or voting behavior. However, our results indicate that attributing vaccine hesitancy solely to a single social factor is not appropriate. Furthermore, the topic modeling of online discourse identifies two distinct sets of justifications for vaccine hesitancy. The first set pertains to political concerns, including constitutional rights and conspiracy theories. The second pertains to medical concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy. However, vaccine-hesitant social media users pragmatically use broad categories of justification for their beliefs. This behavior may suggest that vaccine hesitancy is influenced by political beliefs, unconscious emotions, and gut-level instinct. Our findings have further implications for the critical role of trust in public institutions in shaping attitudes toward vaccination and the need for tailored communication strategies to restore faith in marginalized communities.

The vaccination divide: Exploring moral reasoning associated with intergroup antipathy between vaccinated and unvaccinated people

OBJECTIVES

There is growing evidence of intergroup hostility between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, a process of polarization that threatens to derail population health efforts. This study explores the moral underpinnings of intergroup antipathy between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional design was employed to investigate the associations between the view of vaccination as a social contract or individual choice, perceived vulnerability to disease, perceptions of outgroup morality, feelings of warmth, and experiences of schadenfreude.

METHODS

Data were extracted from an online, quantitative survey of 233 vaccinated and 237 unvaccinated participants collected between June and July 2022.

RESULTS

Results revealed that vaccinated people had stronger negative attitudes towards unvaccinated people than vice versa. In line with hypotheses, the extent to which vaccinated people saw vaccination as a social contract was significantly associated with perceiving unvaccinated people as immoral. For unvaccinated people, seeing vaccination as an individual choice (the opposite of a social contract) was significantly associated with perceiving vaccinated people as immoral. Among both groups, viewing the other as immoral was associated with feeling significantly less warmth towards the opposing vaccination group, and more schadenfreude in the face of an outgroup member's suffering. Participants' perceived vulnerability to disease played a relatively small role in explaining polarization between vaccinated and unvaccinated people.

CONCLUSIONS

This research builds on previous studies by identifying moral mechanisms associated with intergroup antipathy in the vaccine debate.

'Vaccine as a cheat sheet': a metaphor gone awry on Facebook

COVID-19 vaccine-related conspiracy narratives skyrocketed in social media in the first year of the pandemic. Science communicators have tried to debunk false information as did Vlad Mixich, a Romanian public health expert, who tried to explain on Facebook why the vaccine cannot modify the human DNA. Drawing on the literature on metaphor as a discourse phenomenon, this paper uses a discourse-led approach to metaphor analysis to identify and analyze the metaphors used by Mixich to explain how vaccines work and the mRNA technology underlying the COVID-19 vaccine. A particular metaphor is then given special attention: 'vaccine as a cheat sheet'. The author of the Facebook post seems to use this metaphor deliberately both to clarify vaccine-related information and to mock people susceptible to false information about the vaccine. This paper shows that while the 'cheating' metaphor simplifies abstract knowledge and allows the audience to engage with a complex topic, it also has potential to amplify vaccine-related polarization.

A multilayered graph-based framework to explore behavioural phenomena in social media conversations

OBJECTIVE

Social media is part of current health communications. This research aims to delve into the effects of social contagion, biased assimilation, and homophily in building and changing health opinions on social media.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Conversations about COVID-19 vaccination on English and Spanish Twitter are the case studies. A new multilayered graph-based framework supports the integrated analysis of content similarity within and across posts, users, and conversations to interpret contrasting and confluent user stances. Deep learning models are applied to infer stance. Graph centrality and homophily scores support the interpretation of information reproduction.

RESULTS

The results show that semantically related English posts tend to present a similar stance about COVID-19 vaccination (rstance = 0.51) whereas Spanish posts are more heterophilic (rstance = 0.38). Neither case showed evidence of homophily regarding user influence or vaccine hashtags. Graph filters for Pfizer and Astrazeneca with a similarity threshold of 0.85 show stance homophily in English scenarios (i.e. rstance = 0.45 and rstance = 0.58, respectively) and small homophily in Spanish scenarios (i.e. r = 0.12 and r = 0.3, respectively). Highly connected users are a minority and are not socially influential. Spanish conversations showed stance homophily, i.e. most of the connected conversations promote vaccination (rstance = 0.42), whereas English conversations are more likely to offer contrasting stances.

CONCLUSION

The methodology proposed for quantifying the impact of natural and intentional social behaviours in health information reproduction can be applied to any of the main social platforms and any given topic of conversation. Its effectiveness was demonstrated by two case studies describing English and Spanish demographic and sociocultural scenarios.

From high hopes to disenchantment: A qualitative analysis of editorial cartoons on COVID-19 vaccines in Canadian newspapers

In Canada, the first COVID-19 vaccine was approved for use in December 2020, marking the beginning of a large vaccination campaign. The campaign was not only unprecedented in terms of reach, but also with regards to the amount of information about vaccines that circulated in traditional and social media. This study's aim was to describe COVID-19 vaccine related discourses in Canada through an analysis of editorial cartoons. We collected 2172 cartoons about COVID-19 published between January 2020 and August 2022 in Canadian newspapers. These cartoons were downloaded and a first thematic analysis was conducted using the WHO-EPIWIN taxonomy (cause, illness, treatment, interventions, and information). From this, 389 cartoons related to COVID-19 vaccines were identified under the treatment category. These were subjected to a second thematic analysis to assess main themes (e.g., vaccine development, campaign progress, etc.), characters featured (e.g., politicians, public figures, public) and position with respect to vaccine (favorable, unfavorable, neutral). Six main themes emerged: Research and development of vaccines; Management of the vaccination campaign; Perceptions of and experiences with vaccination services; Measures and incentives to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake; Criticism of the unvaccinated; and Effectiveness of vaccination. Our analysis revealed a shift in attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination from high hopes to disenchantment, which may reflect some vaccine fatigue. In the future, public health authorities could face some challenges in maintaining confidence and high COVID-19 vaccine uptake.

Shared decision-making, communicating risk, and food allergy in 2023

Background

Across the practice of allergy and clinical immunology, disruptive innovations have accelerated the adoption of shared decision-making (SDM) to improve the health of patients and populations, particularly with regard to food allergy prevention and management of food allergy and anaphylaxis.

Methods

A narrative review was performed to describe recent innovations in shared decision-making, risk communication, and food allergy.

Results

Several challenges, primarily related to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and misinformation campaigns, have catalyzed adaptations to evolve clinical care. Recent pressures have facilitated the rapid adoption of telemedicine. In 2023, many allergist/immunologists routinely incorporate both in-person and virtual visits to contextually deliver value-based care to each patient. SDM may occur in a hybrid model that incorporates both in-person and virtual encounters, with many patients experiencing benefit from a combination approach. This may be facilitated by leveraging previsit web-based SDM tools. Whether in person or by telemedicine, effective risk communication to avoid cognitive overload while appreciating population variation in numeracy is key to competent implementation of SDM. Misinformation continues to disproportionately harm patients who belong to groups that encourage denial of evidence-based medical recommendations and COVID-19 vaccination intent correlating with sociopolitical factors. Still, strategies to address misinformation that leverage empathy, respect, and expertise can help to mitigate these effects. Physician wellness is a key component to realization of the Quadruple Aim of health care, and the use of positive framing and appreciative inquiry can help to optimize outcomes and improve value in health care.

Conclusion

SDM is an important component to consider when incorporating recent innovations in allergy and clinical immunology care, particularly in the setting of contextual and conditional medical recommendations. Effective risk communication is critical to SDM that is truly reflective of patient goals and preferences, and can be facilitated through in-person encounters, telemedicine, and hybrid models. It is important to foster physician wellness as a component of the Quadruple Aim, particularly in the recent pandemic climate of misinformation and denial of evidence-based medicine within large groups of society.