Lutkenhaus Roel O, Jansz Jeroen, Bouman Martine P A
Center for Media & Health, Gouda, the Netherlands.
Erasmus Research Centre for Media, Communication and Culture (ERMeCC), Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Vaccine X. 2019 Mar 21;1:100019. doi: 10.1016/j.jvacx.2019.100019. eCollection 2019 Apr 11.
In recent years, vaccination rates in the Netherlands have declined slightly, but steadily. The Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) commissioned a Committee for Vaccine Willingness (VWC) to study the societal context of the decline. One of the societal contexts is the Internet, where audiences discuss vaccination and refer to sources of health-related information of varying quality. Working for the VWC, we have explored the Dutch vaccination debate on Twitter in order to: (1) identify online communities in the vaccination debate, (2) identify vaccine-related narratives; and (3) understand how the online communities interact with each other. We identified seven different communities, including (public) health professionals, writers and journalists, anti-establishment, and international vaccination advocates. The debate is spearheaded by the writers & journalists community, while the health- and anti-establishment communities try to influence it. The health community circulates facts, figures and scientific studies, while negative messages about vaccination - either from a homeopathy or conspiracy perspective - are most prevalent in the anti-establishment. The facts and figures shared by the health community hardly reach other communities, whereas the myths introduced by the anti-establishment do spill over to other communities. Our study provides further evidence that negative perceptions about vaccination might be rooted in a wider sentiment of distrust of traditional institutions. We argue that Dutch health organizations should try to address questions, doubts, and worries among the general audience more actively, and present scientific information in a simpler and more attractive way.
近年来,荷兰的疫苗接种率略有下降,但呈稳步趋势。荷兰国家公共卫生与环境研究所(RIVM)委托疫苗意愿委员会(VWC)研究这一下降趋势的社会背景。其中一个社会背景是互联网,在互联网上,人们会讨论疫苗接种,并提及质量参差不齐的健康相关信息来源。为VWC工作期间,我们探索了荷兰在推特上关于疫苗接种的辩论,目的是:(1)识别疫苗接种辩论中的在线社区;(2)识别与疫苗相关的叙事;(3)了解在线社区之间如何相互作用。我们识别出了七个不同的社区,包括(公共)卫生专业人员、作家和记者、反建制派以及国际疫苗接种倡导者。这场辩论由作家和记者社区带头,而健康社区和反建制派社区则试图对其施加影响。健康社区传播事实、数据和科学研究,而关于疫苗接种的负面信息——无论是从顺势疗法还是阴谋论的角度——在反建制派中最为普遍。健康社区分享的事实和数据几乎无法传播到其他社区,而反建制派引入的谣言却会扩散到其他社区。我们的研究进一步证明,对疫苗接种的负面看法可能源于对传统机构更广泛的不信任情绪。我们认为,荷兰卫生组织应更积极地回应普通民众的问题、疑虑和担忧,并以更简单、更有吸引力的方式呈现科学信息。