Why Us? >>

  • - Open Access
  • - Peer-reviewed
  • - Rapid publication
  • - Lifetime hosting
  • - Free indexing service
  • - Free promotion service
  • - More citations
  • - Search engine friendly

Free SCIRP Newsletters>>

Add your e-mail address to receive free newsletters from SCIRP.

 

Contact Us >>

WhatsApp  +86 18163351462(WhatsApp)
   
Paper Publishing WeChat
Book Publishing WeChat
(or Email:book@scirp.org)

Article citations

More>>

Kata, A. (2012) Anti-Vaccine Activists, Web 2.0, and the Postmodern Paradigm—An Overview of Tactics and Tropes Used Online by the Anti-Vaccination Movement. Vaccine, 30, 3778-3789.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.11.112

has been cited by the following article:

  • TITLE: Online Vaccine Information in a Knowledge Exchange Social Website (KESW)

    AUTHORS: Fiona Gorman, Desa Yadegarians, Linda Meng, Nicholas Gorman, Esther Johnston

    KEYWORDS: Online Health Information, Childhood Vaccines, Immunizations, Infectious Diseases, Accuracy, Knowledge Exchange Social Websites

    JOURNAL NAME: Open Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol.10 No.6, June 30, 2020

    ABSTRACT: Background: The potential for misinformation on usercontrolled Knowledge Exchange Social Websites (KESWs) is concerning since it can actively influence Internet users’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors related to childhood vaccinations. Objective: The present study examines the accuracy and predictors of health information posted to a Knowledge Exchange Social Website (KESW). Methods: A sample of 480 answers to childhood vaccination questions were retrieved and rated for accuracy. Multiple logistic regression modeling was used to examine whether answer characteristics (best answer, professional background, statistical information, source disclosure, online link, word count, vaccine stance, and tone) predict accuracy. Results: Overall, only 56.2% of the posted answers were rated as “accurate.” Accuracy varied by topics with between 52.8% - 64.3% being rated as accurate. When Yahoo Answers’ “best answers” were examined, only 49.2% rated as accurate compared to 57.7% of all other answers, a finding attributed to widespread nominations of vaccine misinformation as “best answers” for questions addressing the side effects of vaccines. For all other types of questions, “best answers” were more likely to be accurate. Regression modeling revealed that discussions of personal choices regarding childhood vaccinations predicted the accuracy of posted answers, with those who mentioned vaccinating their own children proving more likely to communicate accurate vaccine information, and those expressing vaccine hesitancy proving more likely to share factually inaccurate statements about vaccines. Conclusion: The high prevalence of misinformation on KESWs suggests that these websites may serve as a vector for spreading vaccine misperceptions. Further research is needed to assess the impact of various KESWs and to develop effective, coordinated responses by public health agencies.