Department of Pediatrics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
J Health Commun. 2020 Mar 3;25(3):232-242. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2020.1737761. Epub 2020 Mar 10.
Despite the effectiveness of vaccines, parents are increasingly opting for non-medical exemption. For health advice on such topics, many parents are now more likely to look to online communities than rely on medical expertise. There is scant literature outlining how parents contribute to online discussion of vaccination. The purpose of this study was to analyze parent vaccination opinions expressed online. Using a codebook adapted from previous research, content analysis was conducted to evaluate comments on parenting blog posts related to vaccination. Variables included stance, argument rhetoric, and accuracy of information. Comments recognized as aggressive or accusatory were recorded into an "attack" category. Descriptive statistics were used to assess trends in comment content. Nine blogs were included, from which 244 comments were analyzed. The most common argument rhetoric was providing, requesting, or evaluating source credibility for both pro- and anti-vaccine comments (24% and 36%). 25% of comments were considered inaccurate health information; 27% fell into the "attack" category, of which 60% were pro-vaccination. The high percentage of "attack" comments and inaccurate information is evidence that blog comments may not be reliable for information-seeking parents. Clinicians should use this data to understand anti-vaccination arguments in efforts to improve vaccine communication.
尽管疫苗有效，但越来越多的家长选择非医学豁免。对于这些主题的健康建议，许多家长现在更倾向于在网上社区寻找，而不是依赖医学专业知识。关于父母如何参与在线疫苗讨论的文献很少。本研究的目的是分析父母在网上发表的疫苗接种意见。本研究使用了改编自先前研究的代码本，对与疫苗接种相关的育儿博客文章的评论进行内容分析，评估变量包括立场、论点修辞和信息准确性。将被认为具有攻击性或指责性的评论记录到“攻击”类别中。使用描述性统计来评估评论内容的趋势。纳入了 9 个博客，共分析了 244 条评论。最常见的论点修辞是为赞成和反对疫苗接种的评论提供、请求或评估来源可信度（分别占 24%和 36%）。25%的评论被认为是不准确的健康信息；27%的评论属于“攻击”类别，其中 60%是赞成接种疫苗的。“攻击”评论和不准确信息的高比例表明，博客评论可能不是寻求信息的家长的可靠信息来源。临床医生应该利用这些数据了解反疫苗接种论点，以努力改善疫苗接种沟通。
