Computer Science > Social and Information Networks
[Submitted on 31 Dec 2019 (v1), last revised 4 Apr 2021 (this version, v5)]
Title:Evidence of disorientation towards immunization on online social media after contrasting political communication on vaccines. Results from an analysis of Twitter data in Italy
View PDFAbstract:Background. In Italy, in recent years, vaccination coverage for key immunizations as MMR has been declining to worryingly low levels. In 2017, the Italian Gov't expanded the number of mandatory immunizations introducing penalties to unvaccinated children's families. During the 2018 general elections campaign, immunization policy entered the political debate with the Gov't in charge blaming oppositions for fuelling vaccine scepticism. A new Gov't established in 2018 temporarily relaxed penalties. Objectives and Methods. Using a sentiment analysis on tweets posted in Italian during 2018, we aimed to: (i) characterize the temporal flow of vaccines communication on Twitter (ii) evaluate the polarity of vaccination opinions and usefulness of Twitter data to estimate vaccination parameters, and (iii) investigate whether the contrasting announcements at the highest political level might have originated disorientation amongst the Italian public. Results. Vaccine-relevant tweeters interactions peaked in response to main political events. Out of retained tweets, 70.0% resulted favourable to vaccination, 16.5% unfavourable, and 13.6% undecided, respectively. The smoothed time series of polarity proportions exhibit frequent large changes in the favourable proportion, enhanced by an up and down trend synchronized with the switch between gov't suggesting evidence of disorientation among the public. Conclusion. The reported evidence of disorientation documents that critical immunization topics, should never be used for political consensus. This is especially true given the increasing role of online social media as information source, which might yield to social pressures eventually harmful for vaccine uptake, and is worsened by the lack of institutional presence on Twitter, calling for efforts to contrast misinformation and the ensuing spread of hesitancy.
Submission history
From: Samantha Ajovalasit [view email][v1] Tue, 31 Dec 2019 11:03:18 UTC (631 KB)
[v2] Mon, 10 Feb 2020 12:29:37 UTC (631 KB)
[v3] Tue, 18 Feb 2020 16:30:12 UTC (630 KB)
[v4] Sat, 28 Nov 2020 20:57:14 UTC (559 KB)
[v5] Sun, 4 Apr 2021 22:02:29 UTC (1,194 KB)
Current browse context:
cs.SI
References & Citations
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
Papers with Code (What is Papers with Code?)
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos
Recommenders and Search Tools
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.