Veille Scientifique étudiante concernant la cognition partagée (SharedCognition) et la polarisation politique
Alimenté par : Claudia Dapino Ponel, Madeline Desmurs
Cette application est une plateforme collaborative de veille scientifique permettant d'importer des publications depuis PubMed, de suivre leur lecture, d'en extraire les éléments méthodologiques clés (protocole, variables, résultats), et de constituer une synthèse structurée pour faciliter la réalisation de revues de littérature.
Dernière synchronisation : 11/06/2026
JMIR Infodemiology . 2025;5 :e57951
BACKGROUND: Prevalence and spread of misinformation are a concern for the exacerbation of vaccine hesitancy and a resulting reduction in vaccine intent. However, few studies have focused on how vaccine misinformation diffuses online, who is responsible for the diffusion, and the mechanisms by which that happens. In addition, researchers have rarely investigated this in non-Western contexts particularly vulnerable to misinformation.OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify COVID-19 vaccine misinformation, map its diffusion, and identify the effect of echo chamber users on misinformation diffusion on a Taiwanese online forum.METHODS: The study uses data from a popular forum in Taiwan called PTT. A crawler scraped all threads on the most popular subforum from January 2021 until December 2022. Vaccine-related threads were identified through keyword searching (n=5818). Types of misinformation, including misleading, disinformation, conspiracy, propaganda, and fabricated content, were coded by 2 researchers. Polarity was proposed as a proxy for measuring an individual's level of involvement in the echo chamber, one of the mechanisms responsible for the viral misinformation on social media. Factors related to information diffusion, including misinformation type and polarity, were then assessed with negative binomial regression.RESULTS: Of 5818 threads, 3830 (65.8%) were identified as true information, and 1601 (27.5%) contained misinformation, yielding 5431 boards for analysis. Misinformation content did not vary much from other contexts. Propaganda-related information was most likely to be reposted (relative risk: 2.07; P