Study of Human Papillomavirus Vaccine-Related Social Media Content Across Eight Social Media Platforms: Scoping...

Social media has become an important channel for health information dissemination and public discussion of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination. Previous reviews have examined social media and HPV vaccination, often focusing on single platforms, broader HPV-related topics, or the potential effects on knowledge, leaving limited cross-platform synthesis specifically focused on HPV vaccine-related communication content, information sources, and analytical approaches.

This scoping review aimed to map and synthesize peer-reviewed studies examining HPV vaccine-related social media content, with particular attention to communication content, information sources, and methodological characteristics.

Following the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus on June 10, 2026. Backward and forward citation searches were completed on July 17, 2026. We included peer-reviewed English-language original studies published between 2006 and 2026 that analyzed HPV vaccine-related communication content on social media. Data were charted using a structured extraction form and synthesized descriptively. No formal risk-of-bias assessment was conducted.

A total of 50 studies published between 2012 and 2026 met the eligibility criteria. Eight social media platforms were represented, with X (formerly Twitter; X Corp) most frequently studied, followed by Weibo (Weibo Corporation), and YouTube (Google LLC). HPV vaccine-related communication content was synthesized into 5 categories: risk- and concern-oriented, benefit- and prevention-oriented, misinformation- and distrust-related, experiential and narrative, and practical and policy-related communication. Across studies, prevention and benefit messages coexisted with safety concerns, side effects, access barriers, misinformation, distrust, and personal narratives. Personal accounts were often associated with experiential narratives or negative sentiment, whereas professional sources were less common but generally provided more informative or higher-quality content. Analytical approaches included content analysis, sentiment analysis, topic modeling, and network analysis, but theoretical frameworks were applied in only a minority of studies.

The evidence was limited by heterogeneity in platforms, sampling strategies, data collection periods, coding schemes, and analytical methods, limiting direct comparison across studies. Because most studies analyzed publicly available social media content, this review could not determine individual-level exposure, interpretation, vaccination intention, or vaccine uptake. Overall, HPV vaccine discourse cannot be adequately understood through sentiment polarity alone. This review provides a cross-platform, content-focused synthesis of how HPV vaccine-related social media communication has been studied. Unlike previous reviews, this review clarifies how HPV vaccine-related content has been described, who generates it, and which methods have been used to analyze it. These findings support theory-informed, platform-sensitive research and may inform public health communication strategies, including evidence-based education, transparent risk communication, credible source engagement, narrative-informed messaging, misinformation monitoring, and improved information quality.