↓ Skip to main content

Bad News: Analysis of the Quality of Information on Influenza Prevention Returned by Google in English and Italian

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in immunology, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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.
Title
Bad News: Analysis of the Quality of Information on Influenza Prevention Returned by Google in English and Italian
Published in
Frontiers in immunology, December 2015
DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2015.00616
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ali Maki, Roger Evans, Pietro Ghezzi

Abstract

Information available to the public influences the approach of the population toward vaccination against influenza compared with other preventative approaches. In this study, we have analyzed the first 200 websites returned by searching Google on two topics (prevention of influenza and influenza vaccine), in English and Italian. For all the four searches above, websites were classified according to their typology (government, commercial, professional, portals, etc.) and for their trustworthiness as defined by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) score, which assesses whether they provide some basic elements of information quality (IQ): authorship, currency, disclosure, and references. The type of information described was also assessed to add another dimension of IQ. Websites on influenza prevention were classified according to the type of preventative approach mentioned (vaccine, lifestyle, hygiene, complementary medicine, etc.), whether the approaches were in agreement with evidence-based medicine (EBM) or not. Websites on influenza vaccination were classified as pro- or anti-vaccine, or neutral. The great majority of websites described EBM approaches to influenza prevention and had a pro-vaccine orientation. Government websites mainly pointed at EBM preventative approaches and had a pro-vaccine orientation, while there was a higher proportion of commercial websites among those which promote non-EBM approaches. Although the JAMA score was lower in commercial websites, it did not correlate with the preventative approaches suggested or the orientation toward vaccines. For each of the four search engine result pages (SERP), only one website displayed the health-of-the-net (HON) seal. In the SERP on vaccines, journalistic websites were the most abundant category and ranked higher than average in both languages. Analysis using natural language processing showed that journalistic websites were mostly reporting news about two specific topics (different in the two languages). While the ranking by Google favors EBM approaches and, in English, does not promote commercial websites, in both languages it gives a great advantage to news. Thus, the type of news published during the influenza season probably has a key importance in orienting the public opinion due to its high visibility. This raises important questions on the relationships between health IQ, trustworthiness, and newsworthiness.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 16%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Other 4 8%
Other 11 22%
Unknown 13 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 26%
Computer Science 5 10%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 14 28%
Attention Score in Context

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 12 March 2021.
All research outputs
#6,921,035
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#7,379
of 31,513 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,631
of 395,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#34
of 128 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 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 31,513 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 395,340 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 128 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 73% of its contemporaries.