You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Comparing the quality of pro- and anti-vaccination online information: a content analysis of vaccination-related webpages
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12889-016-2722-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gabriele Sak, Nicola Diviani, Ahmed Allam, Peter J. Schulz |
| Abstract |
The exponential increase in health-related online platforms has made the Internet one of the main sources of health information globally. The quality of health contents disseminated on the Internet has been a central focus for many researchers. To date, however, few comparative content analyses of pro- and anti-vaccination websites have been conducted, and none of them compared the quality of information. The main objective of this study was therefore to bring new evidence on this aspect by comparing the quality of pro- and anti-vaccination online sources. Based on past literature and health information quality evaluation initiatives, a 40-categories assessment tool (Online Vaccination Information Quality Codebook) was developed and used to code a sample of 1093 webpages retrieved via Google and two filtered versions of the same search engine. The categories investigated were grouped into four main quality dimensions: web-related design quality criteria (10 categories), health-specific design quality criteria (3 categories), health related content attributes (12 categories) and vaccination-specific content attributes (15 categories). Data analysis comprised frequency counts, cross tabulations, Pearson's chi-square, and other inferential indicators. The final sample included 514 webpages in favor of vaccination, 471 against, and 108 neutral. Generally, webpages holding a favorable view toward vaccination presented more quality indicators compared to both neutral and anti-vaccination pages. However, some notable exceptions to this rule were observed. In particular, no differences were found between pro- and anti-vaccination webpages as regards vaccination-specific content attributes. Our analyses showed that the overall quality of pro-vaccination webpages is superior to anti-vaccination online sources. The developed coding scheme was proven to be a helpful and reliable tool to judge the quality of vaccination-related webpages. Based on the results, we advance recommendations for online health information providers as well as directions for future research in this field. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 2 | 25% |
| United States | 2 | 25% |
| Unknown | 4 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 63% |
| Scientists | 2 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 122 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 24 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 13% |
| Researcher | 12 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 20 | 16% |
| Unknown | 26 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 17 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 13% |
| Psychology | 7 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 22 | 18% |
| Unknown | 38 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 June 2022.
All research outputs
#7,040,180
of 25,852,155 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#7,729
of 17,879 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,329
of 404,599 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#100
of 259 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,852,155 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,879 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 404,599 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 259 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.