Six years of activity of the Italian vaccine portal “VaccinarSì”: a web traffic evaluation using Google Analytics
Keywords:
Vaccination, web-traffic, web-portal, vaccine, Google AnalyticsAbstract
Background. Despite the scientific consensus about vaccines safety and effectiveness, there is still a discrepancy between scientific evidence and perception by the general population. The “VaccinarSì” portal was created in 2013 by Italian specialists in Public Health to provide evidence-based information regarding vaccination.
Study Design. The purpose of this study was to analyse the web traffic on “VaccinarSì” platform during a six-year period (May 8, 2013-May 8, 2019). Moreover, we compared the first six-month with the last sixmonth period of the website activity, to identify potential areas of improvements.
Methods. This is a descriptive study using Google Analytics data. We collected data regarding the following: total number of sessions to the portal, total number of pages viewed, total number of users and the number of new visitors, geographical locations and demography of users as well as user access mode (type of device used and way of access). We also collected some data that were informative about the possibility to infer the level of visitors’ engagement with the portal, such as thee number of returning users, bounce rate, number of pages visited per session and mean session duration.
Results. Throughout the relevant period, the portal has consistently increased its popularity, with a remarkable increment of monthly connections (ending up to more than 80,000/month) from all over Italy. Visitors were mainly female (71.1%), aged between 25 and 44 years (64.7%). Healthcare professionals were responsible for a considerable proportion of accesses (50.6%). The mobile has become the dominant device used to access the portal, accounting for 77.8% of total connection in the last six months. Similarly, in the last period, organic search accounted for 92% of all connections. Measles and MPR vaccine, as well as chickenpox and hexavalent vaccine, have remained the most appealing topics of interest among visitors over the years. The page that attracted more visitors over the six years was “real risks and benefits of vaccination”, accounting for 5.67% of total sessions with a high mean duration spent of 05:08 minutes.
Conclusions. During the six years of activity, overall, the level of users’ engagement with the portal has dropped with an increased bounce rate and a lower average number of pages visited per session and a lower mean duration of each connection. The lowest engagement involved connections accessed through mobile devices. Results helped “Vaccinarsi” developers to speculate about future strategies to further increase the platform popularity and optimize visitors’ engagement.
References
1. Maurice JM, Davey S. State of the world’s vaccines and immunization. 3rd ed. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2009.
2. Schuster M, Eskola J, Duclos P, & SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy. Review of vaccine hesitancy: Rationale, remit and methods.
Vaccine 2015; 33(34): 4157-60. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.035.
3. Wellcome Global Monitor 2018. Available on: https://wellcome.ac.uk/reports/wellcomeglobal-monitor/2018 [Last accessed: 2020, Apr 4].
4. MacDonald NE. Vaccine hesitancy: Definition, scope and determinants. Vaccine 2015; 33(34): 4161-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. vaccine.2015.04.036.
5. Spier RE. Perception of risk of vaccine adverse events: A historical perspective. Vaccine 2001; 20(Suppl 1): S78-84; discussion S75-77.
6. Tafuri S, Gallone MS, Cappelli MG, Martinelli D, Prato R, Germinario C. Addressing the antivaccination movement and the role of HCWs.
Vaccine 2014; 32(38): 4860-5. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.11.006.
7. Internet World Stats—Usage and Population Statistics. Available on: https://www.internetworldstats.com/ [Last accessed, 2020, Apr 4].
8. Kihl M, Ödling P, Lagerstedt C, Aurelius A. Traffic analysis and characterization of Internet user behavior. International Congress on Ultra Modern Telecommunications and Control Systems. Moscow, 2010: 224-31. https://doi. org/10.1109/ICUMT.2010.5676633.
9. Perez SL, Paterniti DA, et al. Characterizing the Processes for Navigating Internet Health Information Using Real-Time Observations:
A Mixed-Methods Approach. J Med Internet Res 2015; 17(7): e173. https://doi.org/10.2196/ jmir.3945.
10. Bragazzi NL, Barberis I, Rosselli R, et al. How often people google for vaccination: Qualitative and quantitative insights from a systematic search of the web-based activities using Google Trends. Hum Vaccin Immunother 2017; 13(2): 464. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2017.12 64742.
11. Kummervold PE, Chronaki CE, Lausen B, et al. eHealth trends in Europe 2005-2007: A population-based survey. J Med Internet Res 2008; 10(4): e42. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1023.
12. Giambi C, Fabiani M, D’Ancona F, et al. Parental vaccine hesitancy in Italy – Results from a national survey. Vaccine 2018; 36(6): 779-87.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.12.074.
13. Chan WS, Leung AY. Use of Social Network Sites for Communication Among Health Professionals: Systematic Review. J Med Internet Res 2018; 20(3): e117. https://doi.org/10.2196/ jmir.8382.
14. Younger P. Internet-based information-seeking behaviour amongst doctors and nurses: A short review of the literature. Health Info Librar J 2010; 27(1): 2-10. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1471-1842.2010.00883.x.
15. Aquino F, Donzelli G, De Franco E, Privitera G, Lopalco PL, Carducci, A. The web and public confidence in MMR vaccination in Italy.
Vaccine 2017; 35(35 Pt B): 4494-8. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.07.029.
16. Betsch C. Innovations in communication: The Internet and the psychology of vaccination decisions. Euro Surveill 2011; 16(17). pii: 19849. https://doi.org/10.2807/ese.16.17.19849-en.
17. Scullard P, Peacock C, Davies P. Googling children’s health: Reliability of medical advice on the internet. Arch Dis Child 2010; 95(8): 580-2. https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2009.168856.
18. Kata A. Anti-vaccine activists, Web 2.0, and the postmodern paradigm—An overview of tactics and tropes used online by the anti-vaccination movement. Vaccine 2012; 30(25): 3778-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.11.112.
19. Grant L, Hausman BL, Cashion M, Lucchesi N, Patel K, Roberts J. Vaccination persuasion online: A qualitative study of two provaccine and two vaccine-skeptical websites. J Med Internet Res 2015; 17(5): e133. https://doi.org/10.2196/ jmir.4153.
20. Davies P, Chapman S, Leask J. Antivaccination activists on the world wide web. Arch Dis Child 2002; 87(1): 22-5. https://doi.org/10.1136/ adc.87.1.22.
21. Donzelli G, Palomba G, Federigi I, et al. Misinformation on vaccination: A quantitative analysis of YouTube videos. Hum Vaccin Immunother 2018; 14(7): 1654-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/2 1645515.2018.1454572.
22. Fadda M, Allam A, Schulz PJ. Arguments and sources on Italian online forums on childhood vaccinations: Results of a content analysis.
Vaccine 2015; 33(51): 7152-9. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.11.007.
23. Dieckmann NF, Slovic P, Peters EM. The use of narrative evidence and explicit likelihood by decisionmakers varying in numeracy. Risk Anal 2009; 29(10): 1473-88. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1539-6924.2009.01279.x.
24. Del Vicario M, Vivaldo G, Bessi A, et al. Echo Chambers: Emotional Contagion and Group Polarization on Facebook. Sci Rep 2016; 6: 37825. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep37825.
25. Società Italiana di Igiene, Medicina Preventiva e Sanità Pubblica (SItI). VaccinarSì Portal. Available on: https://www.vaccinarsi.org [Last accessed: 2020, Apr 4].
26. Ferro A, Bonanni P, Castiglia P, et al. [Improving vaccination social marketing by monitoring the web]. Ann Ig 2014; 26(3 Suppl 1): 54-64.
27. Clark DJ, Nicholas D, Jamali HR. Evaluating information seeking and use in the changing virtual world: The emerging role of Google Analytics. Learn Publ 2014; 27(3): 185-94. https:// doi.org/10.1087/20140304.
28. Crutzen R, Roosjen JL, Poelman J. Using Google Analytics as a process evaluation method for Internet-delivered interventions: An example on sexual health. Health Promot Int 2013; 28(1): 36-42. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/das008.
29. Google Support. Analytics policies - Analytics Help. Available on: https://support.google.com/ analytics/answer/4597324 [Last accessed: 2020, Feb 27].
30. Legge 31 luglio 2017, n. 119. Conversione in legge, con modificazioni, del decreto-legge 7 giu-
gno 2017, n. 73, recante disposizioni urgenti in materia di prevenzione vaccinale. (17G00132). GU Serie Generale n. 182 del 05-08-2017. Available on: https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/ eli/id/2017/08/05/17G00132/sg [Last accessed: 2020, Apr 4].
31. Statista Research Department. Forecast of smartphone user numbers in Italy 20182024. Available on: https://www.statista.com/ statistics/467179/forecast-of-smartphone-usersin-italy/ [Last accessed: 2020, Apr 4].
32. Sanmit A. Smartphone penetration to reach 66% in 2018. Market Realist Oct 19, 2017. Available on: https://articles2.marketrealist.com/2017/10/ smartphone-penetration-may-reach-66-globallyin-2018/# [Last accessed: 2020, Apr 4].
33. Kang GJ, Ewing-Nelson SR, Mackey L, et al. Semantic network analysis of vaccine sentiment in online social media. Vaccine 2017; 35(29): 3621-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. vaccine.2017.05.052.
34. Betsch C. Social media targeting of health messages. A promising approach for research and practice. Human Vaccin Immunother 2014; 10(9): 2636-7. https://doi.org/10.4161/ hv.32234.
35. Witteman HO, Zikmund-Fisher BJ. The defining characteristics of Web 2.0 and their potential influence in the online vaccination debate. Vaccine 2012; 30(25): 3734-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. vaccine.2011.12.039.
36. Bégué P. [Vaccine refusal and implications for public health in 2012]. Bull Acad Natl Med 2012; 196(3): 603-7; discussion 617-20.
37. Goldstein S, MacDonald NE, Guirguis S. Health communication and vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine 2015; 33(34): 4212-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. vaccine.2015.04.042.
38. Eysenbach G. Medicine 2.0: Social Networking, Collaboration, Participation, Apomediation, and Openness. J Med Internet Res 2008; 10(3): e22. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1030.
39. CENSIS. 49° Rapporto sulla situazione sociale del Paese/2015. (2015, June 17). Available on: http://www.censis.it/rapportoannuale/49%C2%B0-rapporto-sulla-situazionesociale-del-paese2015 [Last accesses: 2020, Apr 4].
40. Moorhead SA, Hazlett DE, Harrison L, Carroll JK, IrwinA, Hoving C. A new dimension of health care: Systematic review of the uses, benefits, and limitations of social media for health communication. J Med Internet Res 2013; 15(4):
e85. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1933.
41. Glanz JM, Wagner NM, Narwaney KJ, et al. Web-based Social Media Intervention to Increase Vaccine Acceptance: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Pediatrics 2017; 140(6). pii: e20171117. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.20171117.
42. Neuhauser L, Kreps GL. Rethinking Communication in the E-health Era. J Health Psychol 2003; 8(1): 7-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359 105303008001426.
43. Hibbard JH, Greene J. What the evidence shows about patient activation: Better health outcomes and care experiences; fewer data on costs. Health Affairs (Millwood) 2013; 32(2): 207-14. https:// doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1061.
44. World Health Organization (WHO) - Regional Office for Europe. Tailoring immunization programmes to reach underserved groups – the TIP approach. (2019, October 18). Available on: http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/ communicable-diseases/measles-and-rubella/ activities/tailoring-immunization-programmesto-reach-underserved-groups-the-tip-approach [Last accessed: 2020, Apr 4].
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Transfer of Copyright and Permission to Reproduce Parts of Published Papers.
Authors retain the copyright for their published work. No formal permission will be required to reproduce parts (tables or illustrations) of published papers, provided the source is quoted appropriately and reproduction has no commercial intent. Reproductions with commercial intent will require written permission and payment of royalties.