Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Vaccine misinformation types and properties in Russian troll tweets.
Warner, Echo L; Barbati, Juliana L; Duncan, Kaylin L; Yan, Kun; Rains, Stephen A.
Afiliación
  • Warner EL; University of Arizona Cancer Center, 1515 N Campbell Ave, Tucson, AZ 85724, USA; College of Nursing, University of Arizona, 1350 S Martin Ave. Tucson, AZ 85721, USA. Electronic address: echowarner@email.arizona.edu.
  • Barbati JL; Department of Communication, College of Social & Behavioral Sciences, University of Arizona, 1103 E University Blvd, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA.
  • Duncan KL; Department of Communication, College of Social & Behavioral Sciences, University of Arizona, 1103 E University Blvd, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA.
  • Yan K; Department of Communication, College of Social & Behavioral Sciences, University of Arizona, 1103 E University Blvd, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA.
  • Rains SA; Department of Communication, College of Social & Behavioral Sciences, University of Arizona, 1103 E University Blvd, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA.
Vaccine ; 40(6): 953-960, 2022 02 07.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35034832
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

To identify the content of and engagement with vaccine misinformation from Russian trolls on Twitter.

METHODS:

Troll tweets (N = 1959) obtained from Twitter in 2020 were coded for vaccine misinformation (α = 0.77-0.97). Descriptive, bivariate, and multivariable negative binomial regressions were applied to estimate robust incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95 %CI) of vaccine misinformation associations with tweet characteristics and engagement (i.e., replies, likes, retweets).

RESULTS:

Misinformation about personal dangers (43.0%), civil liberty violations (20.2%), and vaccine conspiracies (18.6%) were common. More misinformation tweets used anti-vaccination language (97.3% vs. 13.2%) and referenced symptoms (37.4% vs. 0.5%) than non-misinformation tweets. Fewer misinformation tweets referenced credible sources (14.0% vs. 19.5%), were formatted as headlines (39.2% vs. 77.0%), and mentioned specific vaccines (11.3% vs. 36.1%, all p < 0.01) than non-misinformation tweets. Personal dangers misinformation had 83% lower rate of retweets (95 %CI 0.04-0.66). Civil liberties misinformation had significantly higher rate of replies (IRR 7.65, 95 %CI 1.06-55.46), but lower overall engagement (IRR 0.38, 95 %CI 0.16-0.88) than non-misinformation tweets.

CONCLUSIONS:

Strategies used to promote vaccine misinformation provide insight into the nature of vaccine misinformation online and public responses. Our findings suggest a need to explore influences on whether users reject or entertain online vaccine misinformation.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Vacunas / Medios de Comunicación Sociales Tipo de estudio: Prognostic_studies Idioma: En Revista: Vaccine Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Vacunas / Medios de Comunicación Sociales Tipo de estudio: Prognostic_studies Idioma: En Revista: Vaccine Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article