Premium
Assessment of vaccination‐related information for consumers available on Facebook ®
Author(s) -
Buchanan Rachel,
Beckett Robert D.
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
health information and libraries journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.779
H-Index - 38
eISSN - 1471-1842
pISSN - 1471-1834
DOI - 10.1111/hir.12073
Subject(s) - vaccination , concordance , medicine , family medicine , immunology
Objectives To assess the magnitude, interest, purpose and validity of vaccination‐related information on Facebook and to determine whether information varies by site viewpoint. Methods The 10 largest vaccination‐focused Facebook ® pages, groups and places in each category were identified and classified by viewpoint (i.e. anti‐, pro‐, neutral) and purpose. Number of members, posts per week, likes, comments and shares per post were recorded. Posts were assessed for concordance with CDC and FDA recommendations. Results Of 30 sites, 43% ( n = 13) were anti‐vaccination, 7% ( n = 2) neutral and 50% ( n = 15) pro‐vaccination. Most sites were most popular with American users. Median members were similar between anti‐vaccination (2703 members, range 337–33 631 members) and pro‐vaccination sites (2142 members, range 456–61 565 members, P = 0.262); however, anti‐vaccination sites accumulated more posts per week by authors (median 15 vs. 3, P = 0.031) and members (median 33 vs. 1, P < 0.001). Pro‐vaccination sites more commonly had commercial purpose (53% [ n = 8] vs. 8% [ n = 1], P = 0.02). Anti‐vaccination sites more commonly gave medical advice (54% [ n = 7] vs. 0%, P = 0.004). Overall, 48% ( n = 22) of author posts were concordant with regulatory recommendations; concordance was more common on pro‐vaccination sites (78% [ n = 21] vs. 5% [ n = 1], P = 0.0002). Conclusion Vaccination‐related information is prevalent on Facebook regardless of viewpoint; however, anti‐vaccination information generates more interest. Anti‐vaccination sites were likely to provide medical advice and disagree with regulatory bodies.