Characteristics of YouTube videos about the meningococcal B vaccine (4CMenB)

Figures & data

Table 1. Country of publication, authorship, type of publication, and tone of the message in the videos

	Frequency, n (%)
Country of publication
The USA	32 (41.6)
The United Kingdom	31 (40.3)
Australia	6 (7.8)
Canada	3 (3.9)
Ireland	1 (1.3)
Hungary	1 (1.3)
Unknown	3 (3.8)
Type of authorship
Television channels	22 (28.6)
Health-care professionals	15 (19.5)
Pharmaceutical industry	12 (15.6)
Private users	8 (10.4)
Universities	7 (9.1)
Non-Governmental Organization	6 (7.7)
Other	7 (9.1)
Type of publication
News	27 (35.1)
Interviews	18 (23.4)
Material created by the user	12 (15.6)
Conferences	12 (15.6)
Advertisements	6 (7.8)
Documentaries	2 (2.5)
Tone of the message
Positive	57 (74.0)
Neutral	15 (19.5)
Ambiguous	3 (3.9)
Negative	2 (2.6)

Table 2. Topics related to the meningococcal B vaccine discussed in the videos

Topic	Discussed, n (%)	Not discussed, n (%)
Alert that a disease may be contracted that is preventable with immunization Benefits of the vaccine Recommendation in cases of epidemic outbreak	62 (80.5)53 (68.8)22 (28.6)	15 (19.5)24 (31.2)55 (71.4)
Cost of the vaccine Effectiveness of the vaccine	20 (26.0)19 (24.7)	57 (74.0)58 (75.3)
Description of the dosage	17 (22.1)	60 (77.9)
Adverse effects of the vaccine	16 (20.8)	61 (79.2)
Recommendation in children Route of administration of the vaccine	14 (18.2)12 (15.6)	63 (81.8)65 (84.4)
Recommendation in teenagers Shortage of the vaccine Recommendation in young adults	9 (11.7)5 (6.5)4 (5.2)	68 (88.3)72 (93.5)73 (94.8)
Recommendation in cases of asplenic patients	3 (3.9)	74 (96.1)
Recommendation in cases of terminal complement pathway deficiencies	3 (3.9)	74 (96.1)
Recommendation for laboratory staff	3 (3.9)	74 (96.1)
Recommendation in cases of properdin deficiency Recommendation in cases of treatment with eculizumab Recommendation in cases of previous IMD^a	1 (1.3)1 (1.3) 0 (0)	76 (98.7)76 (98.7) 77 (100)

^aIMD: invasive meningococcal disease.

Table 3. Authorship and topics discussed regarding the meningococcal B vaccine and tone of the message

	Benefits
Type of authorship, % (n)	Discussed (n = 53)	Not discussed (n = 24)	OR (95%CI)	p
Healthcare professionals	24.5 (13)	8.3 (2)	3.58 (0.74-17.30)	0.126
Other	75.5 (40)	91.7 (22)	1
	Effectiveness
Type of authorship, % (n)	Discussed (n =19)	Not discussed (n = 58)	OR (95%CI)	p
Healthcare professionals	42.1 (8)	12.1 (7)	5.29 (1.59-17.69)	0.008
Other	57.9 (11)	87.9 (51)	1
	Adverse effects
Type of authorship, % (n)	Discussed (n = 16)	Not discussed (n =61)	OR (95%CI)	p
Healthcare professionals	50.0 (8)	11.5 (7)	7.71 (2.19-27.12)	0.002
Other	50.0 (8)	88.5 (54)	1
	Cost
Type of authorship, % (n)	Discussed (n = 20)	Not discussed (n = 57)	OR (95%CI)	p
Healthcare professionals	15.0 (3)	21.1 (12)	0.66 (0.17-2.64)	0.747
Other	85.0 (17)	78.9 (45)	1
	Route of administration
Type of authorship, % (n)	Discussed (n = 12)	Not discussed (n = 65)	OR (95%CI)	p
Healthcare professionals	16.7 (2)	20.0 (13)	0.80 (0.16-4.11)	1.000
Other	83.3 (10)	80.0 (52)	1
	Description of the dosage
Type of authorship, % (n)	Discussed (n = 17)	Not discussed (n = 60)	OR (95%CI)	p
Healthcare professionals	47.1 (8)	11.7 (7)	6.73 (1.96-23.17)	0.003
Other	52.9 (9)	88.3 (53)	1
	Alert that a preventable disease may be contracted
Type of authorship, % (n)	Discussed (n = 62)	Not discussed (n = 15)	OR (95%CI)	p
Healthcare professionals	22.6 (14)	6.7 (1)	4.08 (0.49-33.83)	0.277
Other	77.4 (48)	93.3 (14)	1
OR (95%CI): Odds Ratio (95% confidence interval)
	Recommendation in cases of epidemic outbreak
Type of authorship, % (n)	Discussed (n = 22)	Not discussed (n = 55)	OR (95%CI)	p
Healthcare professionals	18.2 (4)	20.0 (11)	0.89 (0.25-3.16)	1.000
Other	81.8 (18)	80.0 (44)	1
	Recommendation in cases of properdin deficiency
Type of authorship, % (n)	Discussed (n = 1)	Not discussed (n = 76)	OR (95%CI)	p
Healthcare professionals	100 (1)	18.4 (14)	-	0.195
Other	0 (0)	81.6 (62)
	Recommendation in cases of treatment with eculizumab
Type of authorship, % (n)	Discussed (n = 1)	Not discussed (n = 76)	OR (95%CI)	p
Healthcare professionals	100 (1)	18.4 (14)	-	0.195
Other	0 (0)	81.6 (62)
	Recommendation in cases of asplenic patients
Type of authorship, % (n)	Discussed (n = 2)	Not discussed (n = 75)	OR (95%CI)	p
Healthcare professionals	100 (2)	17.3 (13)	-	0.036
Other	0 (0)	82.7 (62)
	Recommendation in cases of terminal complement pathway deficiencies
Type of authorship, % (n)	Discussed (n = 3)	Not discussed (n = 74)	OR (95%CI)	p
Healthcare professionals	100 (3)	16.2 (12)	-	0.006
Other	0 (0)	83.8 (62)
	Recommendation for laboratory staff
Type of authorship, % (n)	Discussed (n = 3)	Not discussed (n = 74)	OR (95%CI)	p
Healthcare professionals	66.7 (2)	17.6 (13)	9.39 (0.79-111.39)	0.095
Other	33.3 (1)	82.4(61)	1
OR (95%CI): Odds Ratio (95% confidence interval)
	Recommendation in children
Type of authorship, % (n)	Discussed (n = 14)	Not discussed (n = 63)	OR (95%CI)	p
Healthcare professionals	14.3 (2)	20.6 (13)	0.64 (0.13-3.23)	0.725
Other	85.7 (12)	79.4 (50)	1
	Recommendation in young adults
Type of authorship, % (n)	Discussed (n = 4)	Not discussed (n = 73)	OR (95%CI)	p
Healthcare professionals	25.0 (1)	19.2 (14)	1.41 (0.14-14.54)	1.000
Other	75.0 (3)	80.8 (59)	1
	Recommendation in teenagers
Type of authorship, % (n)	Discussed (n = 9)	Not discussed (n = 68)	OR (95%CI)	p
Healthcare professionals	33.3 (3)	17.6 (12)	2.33 (0.51-10.67)	0.366
Other	66.7 (6)	82.4 (56)	1
	Tone of the message
Type of authorship, % (n)	Positive (n = 57)	Others (n = 20)	OR (95%CI)	p
Healthcare professionals	26.3 (15)	0 (0)	-	0.008
Other	73.7 (42)	100 (20)

OR (95% CI): odds ratio (95% confidence interval).