RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Quantifying changes in vaccine coverage in mainstream media as a result of COVID-19 outbreak
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.11.07.21266018
DO 10.1101/2021.11.07.21266018
A1 Christensen, Bente
A1 Laydon, Daniel J
A1 Chelkowski, Tadeusz
A1 Jemielniak, Dariusz
A1 Vollmer, Michaela
A1 Bhatt, Samir
A1 Krawczyk, Konrad
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/11/11/2021.11.07.21266018.abstract
AB Background Achieving vaccine-derived herd immunity depends on public acceptance of vaccination, which in turn relies on people’s understanding of its risks and benefits. The fundamental objective of public health messaging on vaccines is therefore the clear and concise communication of often complex information, and increasingly the countering of misinformation. The primary outlet shaping societal understanding is the mainstream online news media. There was widespread media coverage of the multiple vaccines that were rapidly developed in response to COVID-19. We studied vaccine coverage on the front pages of mainstream online news, using text-mining analysis to quantify the amount of information and sentiment polarization of vaccine coverage delivered to readers.Methods We analyzed 28 million articles from 172 major news sources, across 11 countries between July 2015 and April 2021. We employed keyword-based frequency analysis to estimate the proportion of coverage given to vaccines in our dataset. We performed topic detection using BERTopic and Named Entity Recognition to identify the leading subjects and actors mentioned in the context of vaccines. We used the Vader Python module to perform sentiment polarization quantification of all our English-language articles.Results We find that the proportion of headlines mentioning vaccines on the front pages of international major news sites increased from 0.1% to 3.8% with the outbreak of COVID-19. The absolute number of negatively polarized articles increased from a total of 6,698 before the COVID-19 outbreak 2015-2019 compared to 28,552 in 2020-2021. Overall, however, before the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccine coverage was slightly negatively polarized (57% negative) whereas with the outbreak, the coverage was primarily positively polarized (38% negative).Conclusions Because of COVID-19, vaccines have risen from a marginal topic to a widely discussed topic on the front pages of major news outlets. Despite a perceived rise in hesitancy, the mainstream online media, i.e. the primary information source to most individuals, has been strongly positive compared to pre-pandemic vaccine news, which was mainly negative. However, the pandemic was accompanied with an order of magnitude increase in vaccine news volume that due to pre-pandemic low frequency sampling bias may contribute to a perceived negative sentiment. These results highlight the important interactions between the volume of news and overall polarisation. To the best of our knowledge, our work is the first systematic text mining study of vaccines in the context of COVID-19.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was supported by Centre funding from the UK Medical Research Council under a concordat with the UK Department for International Development, the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Modelling Methodology and Community Jameel. This research was also partly funded by the Imperial College COVID-19 Research Fund. S. Bhatt acknowledges The UK Research and Innovation (MR/V038109/1), the Academy of Medical Sciences Springboard Award (SBF004/1080), The MRC (MR/R015600/1), The BMGF (OPP1197730), Imperial College Healthcare NHS TrustBRC Funding (RDA02), The Novo Nordisk Young Investigator Award (NNF20OC0059309) and The NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Modelling Methodology.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This study does not involve any human data.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesData are available via sciride.org http://sciride.org