Vaccinating across the aisle: using co-partisan source cues to encourage COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the ideological right

Strategies for and Barriers to Communicating About Health Equity in Challenging Times: Qualitative Interviews With Public Health Communicators

Policy Points Public health communicators in practice discuss health equity issues in a competitive information environment. Through interviews with 36 communicators from diverse professional perspectives (i.e., journalists, advocates, public health leaders) in 2022-2023, we illuminated key challenges they face and strategies and resources that might mitigate these challenges. Findings can inform communication research priorities and investment in resources to help practitioners communicate about health equity amid a challenging political landscape.

CONTEXT

Communicating about health equity is increasingly challenging in light of a changing information environment and the emergence of opposition to equity and equity-related concepts since 2020. Public health communicators often discuss health equity-related concepts, but it is not clear what strategies they use or what resources can support them to overcome challenges they face.

METHODS

We conducted qualitative interviews (N = 36) with communicators across four professional categories (public health leaders, journalists, thought leaders, and health advocates/organizers) from late 2022 to mid-2023 to discuss the strategies they employ; the challenges or barriers they face related to audiences, their institutions, or the broader communication landscape; and the resources they rely on, including their social networks, toolkits or guides, trainings, and research.

FINDINGS

Communicators use a range of strategies to explain health equity, the causes of disparities, and the imperative of solutions; data and stories were common approaches used, although these strategies were not considered a panacea. They also face consistent challenges, such as concerns about audience resistance, lack of public understanding of terminology, and a fragmented communication landscape-and for journalists in particular, institutional barriers and the challenge of identifying diverse sources. Communicators rely on a range of resources, though mainly colleagues and interpersonal support, with the use of research-based resources being relatively uncommon. Although there were commonalities among public health leaders' and advocates' approaches, journalists' concerns and resources were often different.

CONCLUSIONS

Communicators could benefit from more research to confirm or offset some of their concerns (such as the potential for resistance from the use of key phrases, like "systemic racism," or unintended consequences of using disparities data); researchers must also disseminate this work to these practitioners, including journalists. Academic researchers, foundations, and nonprofit organizations all can play roles in building infrastructure for resource sharing, research dissemination, and convening communicators to build stronger connections and support.

Predictors of Persistent COVID-19 Vaccine Refusal Among Previously Infected Patients in Nebraska

Objectives. To identify factors associated with persistent COVID-19 vaccine refusal among Nebraska residents 6 months after an initial COVID-19 diagnosis. Methods. Using case investigation surveillance data and vaccination records from the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, a cohort of 16 344 unvaccinated, COVID-19‒confirmed individuals (May 2021‒February 2023) were asked for their reason for nonvaccination (RNV), then followed for 6 months to assess subsequent vaccination status. We used a modified Poisson regression to estimate risk of unvaccinated status at follow-up against predictors, including RNV, demographic characteristics, adherence to mitigation measures, hospitalization, and rurality. Results. Compared with those whose RNV was missed opportunity/lack of convenience, individuals who cited religious exemption (adjusted incidence risk ratio [AIRR = 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.31, 1.41), philosophical objection (AIRR = 1.28; 95% CI = 1.24, 1.34), or institutional confidence/complacency concerns (AIRR = 1.26; 95% CI = 1.19, 1.33) showed greatest risk of nonvaccination. Older age, nonadherence to mitigation measures, and higher rurality are positively associated with nonvaccination. Minority status and hospitalization were correlated with vaccination. Conclusions. Ideology-centered objections held significant weight among previously infected individuals who displayed sustained reluctance toward COVID-19 vaccination. Distinguishing sources of misinformation among ideologically similar communities could instigate reconsideration for vaccination. (Am J Public Health. 2025;115(3):414-424. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307921).

Understanding the rationales and information environments for early, late, and nonadopters of the COVID-19 vaccine

Anti-vaccine sentiment during the COVID-19 pandemic grew at an alarming rate, leaving much to understand about the relationship between people's vaccination status and the information they were exposed to. This study investigated the relationship between vaccine behavior, decision rationales, and information exposure on social media over time. Using a cohort study that consisted of a nationally representative survey of American adults, three subpopulations (early adopters, late adopters, and nonadopters) were analyzed through a combination of statistical analysis, network analysis, and semi-supervised topic modeling. The main reasons Americans reported choosing to get vaccinated were safety and health. However, work requirements and travel were more important for late adopters than early adopters (95% CI on OR of [0.121, 0.453]). While late adopters' and nonadopters' primary reason for not getting vaccinated was it being too early, late adopters also mentioned safety issues more often and nonadopters mentioned government distrust (95% CI on OR of [0.125, 0.763]). Among those who shared Twitter/X accounts, early adopters and nonadopters followed a larger fraction of highly partisan political accounts compared to late adopters, and late adopters were exposed to more neutral and pro-vaccine messaging than nonadopters. Together, these findings suggest that the decision-making process and the information environments of these subpopulations have notable differences, and any online vaccination campaigns need to consider these differences when attempting to provide accurate vaccine information to all three subpopulations.

Polarization, the Pandemic, and Public Trust in Health System Actors

CONTEXT

Public opinion on the performance of health system actors is polarized today, but it remains unclear which actors enjoy the most or the least trust among Democrats and Republicans, whether the COVID-19 pandemic has influenced how people view their own physicians, and whether doctors have retained the ability to influence public beliefs about policy issues.

METHODS

The authors conducted two national surveys in 2022 and 2023 to examine these questions.

FINDINGS

Democrats rated the performance of medical research scientists and public health experts during the pandemic more highly than did Republicans and independents. About three in ten Republicans said the pandemic decreased their trust in their personal doctors. Nonetheless, most Americans reported confidence in physicians. The authors replicated the findings of Gerber and colleagues (2014) to demonstrate that respondents continued to have more positive views of doctors than other professionals and that public opinion was responsive to cues from a doctors' group.

CONCLUSIONS

What polarizes Democrats and Republicans today is not the question of whether medical scientists and public health experts are competent but whether the advice offered by these actors is in the public interest and should guide policy makers' decisions. Democrats strongly believe the answer to these questions is yes, while Republicans exhibit skepticism.

Polarized Perspectives on Health Equity: Results from a Nationally Representative Survey on US Public Perceptions of COVID-19 Disparities in 2023

Republicans and Democrats responded to the COVID-19 pandemic in starkly different ways, from their attitudes in 2020 about whether the virus posed a threat to whether the pandemic ended in 2023. The consequences of COVID-19 for health equity have been a central concern in public health, and the concept of health equity has also been beset by partisan polarization. In this article, the authors present and discuss nationally representative survey data from 2023 on US public perceptions of disparities in COVID-19 mortality (building on a previous multiwave survey effort) as well as causal attributions for racial disparities, the contribution of structural racism, and broader attitudes about public health authority. The authors find anticipated gulfs in perspectives between Democrats on the one hand and independents and Republicans on the other. The results offer a somewhat pessimistic view of the likelihood of finding common ground in how the general public understands health inequities or the role of structural racism in perpetuating them. However, the authors show that those who acknowledge racial disparities in COVID-19 are more likely to support state public health authority to act in response to other infectious disease threats. The authors explore the implications of these public opinion data for advocacy, communication, and future needed research.

Controversies of COVID-19 vaccine promotion: lessons of three randomised survey experiments from Hungary

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate vaccine promotion messages, examine the heterogeneous effects of these messages and provide experimental evidence to help evaluate the efficiency of COVID-19 vaccine promotion campaigns in Hungary.

STUDY DESIGN

This study presents the results of three randomised survey experiments that were embedded in cross-sectional, representative, public opinion studies of Hungarian adults based on in-person interviews. Simple randomisation and blinding were applied to assign participants into the control group (no message) or treatment groups (vaccine promotion messages).

METHODS

The first experiment (March 2021) aimed to test vaccination promotion messages from politicians (N = 331) and medical experts (N = 342) by comparing experimental groups' trust in vaccines and conspiratorial beliefs with the control group (N = 327). The second experiment (September 2022) tested the impact of two communication strategies ([1] highlighting the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, N = 104; and [2] highlighting the wide variety of vaccines available, N = 110) on increasing vaccine uptake among those who were still unvaccinated (control group, N = 89). The third experiment (September 2022) tested one message aiming to increase COVID-19 booster uptake among those who received only the first round of vaccination (N = 172; control group, N = 169). The outcome variable in the second and third experiments was intent to get vaccinated. Robust regressions, logit models, Mann-Whitney U-tests and model-based recursive partitioning were run. The inference criteria (p < 0.05) was set in pre-registration of the experiments.

RESULTS

All treatment effects were insignificant, but exploratory research found significant conditional treatment effects. Exposure to vaccine promotion by medical professionals was associated with a higher level of trust in Russian and Chinese COVID-19 vaccines in older age cohorts (weighted robust regressions, 50-59 years old, Russian vaccine: +0.769, interaction term [i.t.] p = 0.010; Chinese vaccine: +0.326, i.t. p = 0.044; and ≥60 years old, Russian vaccine +0.183, i.t. p = 0.040; Chinese vaccine +0.559, i.t. p = 0.010) and with a lower level of trust in these vaccines among younger adults (<30 years old, Russian vaccine: -1.236, i.t. p = 0.023; Chinese vaccine: -1.281, i.t. p = 0.022). Receiving a vaccine promotion message from politicians led to a higher level of trust in Chinese vaccines among the oldest respondents (≥60 years: +0.634, i.t. p = 0.035).

CONCLUSIONS

Short-term persuasion attempts that aimed to convince respondents about COVID-19 vaccination were ineffective. Booster hesitancy, similar to primary vaccine hesitancy, was resistant to vaccine promotion messages. Significant conditional effects suggest that COVID-19 vaccine promotion by medical experts and politicians may have had adverse effects for some demographic groups in Hungary.

How older adults manage misinformation and information overload - A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic was characterized by an abundance of information, some of it reliable and some of it misinformation. Evidence-based data on the impact of misinformation on attitudes and behaviours remains limited. Studies indicate that older adults are more likely to embrace and disseminate misinformation than other population groups, making them vulnerable to misinformation. The purpose of this article is to explore the effects of misinformation and information overload on older adults, and to present the management strategies put in place to deal with such effects, in the context of COVID-19.

METHODS

A qualitative exploratory approach was adopted to conduct this research. A total of 36 semi-structured interviews were conducted with older adults living in Quebec, Canada. The interviews were fully transcribed and subjected to a thematic content analysis.

RESULTS

Participants said they could easily spot misinformation online. Despite this, misinformation and its treatment by the media could generate fear, stress and anxiety. Moreover, the polarization induced by misinformation resulted in tensions and even friendship breakdowns. Participants also denounced the information overload produced largely by the media. To this end, the participants set up information routines targeting the sources of information and the times at which they consulted the information.

CONCLUSIONS

This article questions the concept of vulnerability to misinformation by highlighting older adults' agency in managing misinformation and information overload. Furthermore, this study invites us to rethink communication strategies by distinguishing between information overload and misinformation.

Broad perspectives in understanding vaccine hesitancy and vaccine confidence: an introduction to the special issue

The World Health Organization has designated vaccine hesitancy and vaccine confidence among the most pressing issues in global health. The COVID-19 pandemic has made vaccine hesitancy and vaccine confidence particularly salient and urgent. The purpose of this special issue is to highlight a broad range of perspectives on these critical issues. We have included a total of 30 papers that address issues related to vaccine hesitancy and vaccine confidence across multiple levels of the Socio-Ecological Model. We have organized the empirical papers into the following sections: individual-level beliefs, minority health and health disparities, social media and conspiracy beliefs, and interventions. In addition to the empirical papers, three commentaries are included in this special issue.

Economic risk framing increases intention to vaccinate among Republican COVID-19 vaccine refusers

OBJECTIVE

To determine if framing communications about COVID-19 vaccines in economic terms can increase Republicans' likelihood to get vaccinated.

METHODS

We examined Twitter posts between January 2020 and September 2021 by Democratic and Republican politicians to determine how they framed the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on these posts, we carried out a survey study between September and November 2021 to examine whether motivations for COVID-19 vaccine uptake matched message frames that were widely used by these politicians. Finally, we conducted a randomized controlled experiment to examine how these frames (economic vs. health) affected intentions to vaccinate by vaccine refusers in both parties.

RESULTS

Republican politicians were more likely to frame the pandemic in economic terms, whereas Democrats predominantly used health frames. Accordingly, vaccinated Republicans' choices were more likely to be motivated by economic consideration (β = 0.25, p = 0.02) and personal financial rationales (β = 0.24, p = 0.03). Among vaccine refusers, Republicans exposed to messages using economic rationales to encourage vaccination reported higher vaccination intentions compared to those exposed to messages using public health rationales (F1,119 = 4.16, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Messages highlighting economic and personal financial risks could increase intentions to vaccinate for vaccine-hesitant Republicans.

PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS

Agencies should invest in developing messages that are congruent with frames that are already widely used by co-partisans. Social media may be helpful in eliciting these frames.