Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Misinformation and other elements in HPV vaccine tweets: an experimental comparison

  • Published:
Journal of Behavioral Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Our study examined how misinformation and other elements of social media messages affect antecedents to human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination of adolescents. In 2017–2018, we randomly assigned a national sample of 1206 U.S. parents of adolescents to view one tweet using a 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 between-subjects factorial experiment. The 16 experimental tweets varied four messaging elements: misinformation (misinformation or not), source (person or organization), narrative style (storytelling or scientific data), and topic (effectiveness or safety). Parents reported their motivation to vaccinate (primary outcome), trust in social media content, and perceived risk about HPV-related diseases. Tweets without misinformation elicited higher HPV vaccine motivation than tweets with misinformation (25% vs. 5%, OR = 6.60, 95% CI:4.05, 10.75). Motivation was higher for tweets from organizations versus persons (20% vs. 10%, OR = 2.47, 95% CI:1.52, 4.03) and about effectiveness versus safety (20% vs. 10%, OR = 2.03, 95% CI:1.24, 3.30). Tweets with misinformation produced lower trust and higher perceived risk (both p < .01), with impact varying depending on source and topic. In conclusion, misinformation was the most potent social media messaging element. It may undermine progress in HPV vaccination.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AAPOR. (2015).The American Association for Public Opinion Research standard definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys. Oakbrook Terrace, IL: AAPOR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Betsch, C., Renkewitz, F., Betsch, T., & Ulshöfer, C. (2010). The influence of vaccine-critical websites on perceiving vaccination risks. Journal of Health Psychology 15, 446–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broniatowski, D. A., Jamison, A. M., Qi, S., et al. (2018). Weaponized health communication: Twitter bots and Russian trolls amplify the vaccine debate. American Journal of Public Health, 108, 1378–1384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruine de Bruin, W., Wallin, A., Parker, A. M., Strough, J., & Hanmer, J. (2017). Effects of anti- versus pro-vaccine narratives on responses by recipients varying in numeracy: A cross-sectional survey-based experiment. Medical Decision Making, 37, 860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cartmell, K. B., Mzik, C. R., Sundstrom, B. L., Luque, J. S., White, A., & Young-Pierce, J. (2019). HPV vaccination communication messages, messengers, and messaging strategies. Journal of Cancer Education, 34, 1014–1023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chou, W. S., Oh, A., & Klein, W. M. P. (2018). Addressing health-related misinformation on social media. JAMA, 320, 2417–2418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, A. G., Surian, D., Leask, J., Dey, A., Mandl, K. D., & Coiera, E. (2017). Mapping information exposure on social media to explain differences in HPV vaccine coverage in the United States. Vaccine, 35, 3033–3040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekram, S., Debiec, K. E., Pumper, M. A., & Moreno, M. A. (2019). Content and commentary: HPV vaccine and YouTube. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, 32, 153–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elam-Evans, L. D., Yankey, D., Singleton, J. A., et al. (2020). National, regional, state, and selected local area vaccination coverage among adolescents aged 13–17 years—United States, 2019. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 68, 718–723.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faasse, K., Chatman, C. J., & Martin, L. R. (2016). A comparison of language use in pro- and anti-vaccination comments in response to a high profile Facebook post. Vaccine, 34, 5808–5814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallup. (2019). U.S. confidence in organized religion remains low. Available from: https://news.gallup.com/poll/259964/confidence-organized-religion-remains-low.aspx Accessed January 14, 2020.

  • Getman, R., Helmi, M., Roberts, H., Yansane, A., Cutler, D., & Seymour, B. (2018). Vaccine hesitancy and online information: The influence of digital networks. Health Educ Behav, 45, 599–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gidengil, C., Chen, C., Parker, A. M., Nowak, S., & Matthews, L. (2019). Beliefs around childhood vaccines in the United States: A systematic review. Vaccine, 37, 6793–6802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilkey, M. B., Calo, W. A., Marciniak, M. W., & Brewer, N. T. (2017). Parents who refuse or delay HPV vaccine: Differences in vaccination behavior, beliefs, and clinical communication preferences. Hum Vaccin Immunother, 13, 680–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guidry, J. P., Carlyle, K., Messner, M., & Jin, Y. (2015). On pins and needles: How vaccines are portrayed on Pinterest. Vaccine, 33, 5051–5056.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, K. E., Koch, B., Bonner, K., McRee, A. L., & Basta, N. E. (2018). National trends in parental human papillomavirus vaccination intentions and reasons for hesitancy, 2010–2015. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 67, 1018–1026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healthy People 2020. 2020 topics and objectives: Immunization and infectious diseases: IID-11 Increase routine vaccination coverage levels for adolescents. Available from: http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topicsobjectives2020/objectiveslist.aspx?topicId=23 Accessed October 21, 2019.

  • Jones, A.M., Omer, S.B., Bednarczyk, R.A., Halsey, N.A., Moulton, L.H., & Salmon, D.A. (2012).s. Adv Prev Med, 2012.

  • Kang, G. J., Ewing-Nelson, S. R., Mackey, L., et al. (2017). Semantic network analysis of vaccine sentiment in online social media. Vaccine, 35, 3621–3638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keim-Malpass, J., Mitchell, E. M., Sun, E., & Kennedy, C. (2017). Using Twitter to understand public perceptions regarding the #HPV vaccine: Opportunities for Public Health Nurses to Engage in Social Marketing. Public Health Nursing, 34, 316–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lama, Y., Hu, D., Jamison, A., Quinn, S. C., & Broniatowski, D. A. (2019). Characterizing trends in human papillomavirus vaccine discourse on reddit (2007–2015): An observational study. JMIR Public Health Surveill, 5, e12480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, M. A., Brewer, N. T., Shah, P. D., Calo, W. A., & Gilkey, M. B. (2019). Stories about HPV vaccine in social media, traditional media, and conversations. Preventive Medicine, 118, 251–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massey, P. M., Leader, A., Yom-Tov, E., Budenz, A., Fisher, K., & Klassen, A. C. (2016). Applying multiple data collection tools to quantify human papillomavirus vaccine communication on Twitter. J Med Internet Res, 18, e318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meites, E., Kempe, A., & Markowitz, L. E. (2016). Use of a 2-dose schedule for human papillomavirus vaccination: Updated recommendations of the advisory committee on immunization practices. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 65, 1405–1408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nan, X., & Madden, K. (2012). HPV vaccine information in the blogosphere: How positive and negative blogs influence vaccine-related risk perceptions, attitudes, and behavioral intentions. Health Commun, 27, 829–836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, P. A., Logie, C. H., Lacombe-Duncan, A., et al. (2018). Parents’ uptake of human papillomavirus vaccines for their children: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. British Medical Journal Open, 8, e019206.

    Google Scholar 

  • The New York Times. How Anti-Vaccine Sentiment Took Hold in the United States. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/23/health/anti-vaccination-movement-us.html Accessed January 14, 2020.

  • Noar, S. M., Bell, T., Kelley, D., Barker, J., & Yzer, M. (2018). Perceived message effectiveness measures in tobacco education campaigns: A systematic review. Commun Methods Meas, 12, 295–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pew Research Center. (2019a). Social Media Fact Sheet. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/social-media/ Accessed December 19, 2019.

  • Pew Research Center. (2019b). 5 key findings about public trust in scientists in the U.S. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/05/5-key-findings-about-public-trust-in-scientists-in-the-u-s/ Accessed January 14, 2020.

  • Salmon, D. A., Dudley, M. Z., Glanz, J. M., & Omer, S. B. (2015). Vaccine hesitancy: Causes, consequences, and a call to action. Vaccine, 33, D66–D71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senkomago, V., Henley, S. J., Thomas, C. C., Mix, J. M., Markowitz, L. E., & Saraiya, M. (2019). Human papillomavirus: Attributable cancers—United States, 2012–2016. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 68, 724–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shah, P. D., Calo, W. A., Gilkey, M. B., et al. (2019). Questions and Concerns about HPV vaccine: A communication experiment. Pediatrics, 143, e20181872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Southwell, B. G., Niederdeppe, J., Cappella, J. N., et al. (2019). Misinformation as a misunderstood challenge to public health. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 57, 282–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teoh, D. (2019). The power of social media for HPV vaccination-not fake news! Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book, 39, 75–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (PI Brewer; grant #3U48 DP005017-03S6) and supported by Cooperative Agreement #U48 DP005017-01S8 from the CDC and the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Authors’ time (Calo and Dyer) was also supported by a grant from the American Cancer Society (ACS) (grant #124171-IRG-13–043-01). Margolis was supported by training grant #T32 CA057726 from NCI. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the CDC, NCI or ACS.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Public Health Sciences, Penn State College of Medicine, 90 Hope Drive, Mail Code A210, Hershey, PA, 17033, USA

    William A. Calo & Anne-Marie Dyer

  2. Penn State Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA, USA

    William A. Calo

  3. Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

    Melissa B. Gilkey, Marjorie A. Margolis, Susan Alton Dailey & Noel T. Brewer

  4. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

    Melissa B. Gilkey & Noel T. Brewer

  5. The Hutchinson Institute for Cancer Outcomes Research, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA

    Parth D. Shah

Authors
  1. William A. Calo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Melissa B. Gilkey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Parth D. Shah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anne-Marie Dyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marjorie A. Margolis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Susan Alton Dailey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Noel T. Brewer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William A. Calo.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

Dr. Brewer has served on paid advisory boards of and received research grants from Merck. William A. Calo, Melissa B. Gilkey, Parth D. Shah, Anne-Marie Dyer, Marjorie A. Margolis and Susan Alton Dailey indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Human and animal rights and Informed Consent

All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible human subjects committee (Institutional Review Board at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments. Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 18 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 18 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Calo, W.A., Gilkey, M.B., Shah, P.D. et al. Misinformation and other elements in HPV vaccine tweets: an experimental comparison. J Behav Med 44, 310–319 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-021-00203-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-021-00203-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation