%0期刊文章%@ 2564-1891 % 1 JMIR出版物%V 2 卡塔尔世界杯8强波胆分析%N 2 %P e38485% T阴性COVID-19疫苗推特信息:内容分析%A Yiannakoulias,Niko %A Darlington,J Connor %A Slavik,Catherine %A Benjamin,Grant %+麦克马斯特大学地球、环境与社会学院，加拿大汉密尔顿，L8S4L8, 1280 Main Street West, 1 905 525 9140 ext 20117，yiannan@mcmaster.ca %K疫苗接受率%K疫苗犹豫率%K Twitter %K健康传播率%K COVID-19 %K社交媒体%K信息流行病学%K错误信息%K内容分析%K情感分析%K疫苗错误信息%K基于网络的健康信息%D 2022 %7 29.8.2022 %9 jjmir信息流行病学%G英语%X背景:社交媒体平台，如Facebook, Instagram, Twitter和YouTube，在传播反疫苗意见和错误信息方面发挥了作用。疫苗一直是管理COVID-19大流行的重要组成部分，因此，阻碍疫苗接种的内容通常被视为对公共卫生的担忧。然而，并非所有关于疫苗的负面信息都是明确的反疫苗信息，其中一些信息可能是公共卫生专家与社区之间公开交流的重要组成部分。目的:本研究旨在确定2021年前4个月Twitter上COVID-19疫苗阴性信息的频率。方法:我们从2021年初收集的与COVID-19和疫苗接种相关的推文的大采样框架中抽样，对7306条推文进行人工编码。我们还对地理位置和提到的特定疫苗生产商进行了编码。我们按作者类型、地理位置(美国、英国和加拿大)和疫苗开发商比较了抗疫苗和阴性疫苗信息随时间的流行情况。结果:1.8%(131/7306)的推文为反疫苗信息，21%(1533/7306)的推文为疫苗负面信息。 The media and government were common sources of negative vaccine information but not anti-vaccine content. Twitter users from the United States generated the plurality of negative vaccine information; however, Twitter users in the United Kingdom were more likely to generate negative vaccine information. Negative vaccine information related to the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine was the most common, particularly in March and April 2021. Conclusions: Overall, the volume of explicit anti-vaccine content on Twitter was small, but negative vaccine information was relatively common and authored by a breadth of Twitter users (including government, medical, and media sources). Negative vaccine information should be distinguished from anti-vaccine content, and its presence on social media could be promoted as evidence of an effective communication system that is honest about the potential negative effects of vaccines while promoting the overall health benefits. However, this content could still contribute to vaccine hesitancy if it is not properly contextualized. %R 10.2196/38485 %U https://infodemiology.www.mybigtv.com/2022/2/e38485 %U https://doi.org/10.2196/38485