Excluding numeric side-effect information produces lower vaccine intentions

Clearing the air: evaluating institutions' social media health messaging on wildfire and smoke risks in the US Pacific Northwest

BACKGROUND

Wildfire smoke contributes substantially to the global disease burden and is a major cause of air pollution in the US states of Oregon and Washington. Climate change is expected to bring more wildfires to this region. Social media is a popular platform for health promotion and a need exists for effective communication about smoke risks and mitigation measures to educate citizens and safeguard public health.

METHODS

Using a sample of 1,287 Tweets from 2022, we aimed to analyze temporal Tweeting patterns in relation to potential smoke exposure and evaluate and compare institutions' use of social media communication best practices which include (i) encouraging adoption of smoke-protective actions; (ii) leveraging numeric, verbal, and Air Quality Index risk information; and (iii) promoting community-building. Tweets were characterized using keyword searches and the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) software. Descriptive and inferential statistics were carried out.

RESULTS

44% of Tweets in our sample were authored between January-August 2022, prior to peak wildfire smoke levels, whereas 54% of Tweets were authored during the two-month peak in smoke (September-October). Institutional accounts used Twitter (or X) to encourage the adoption of smoke-related protective actions (82% of Tweets), more than they used it to disseminate wildfire smoke risk information (25%) or promote community-building (47%). Only 10% of Tweets discussed populations vulnerable to wildfire smoke health effects, and 14% mentioned smoke mitigation measures. Tweets from Washington-based accounts used significantly more verbal and numeric risk information to discuss wildfire smoke than Oregon-based accounts (p = 0.042 and p = 0.003, respectively); however, Tweets from Oregon-based accounts on average contained a higher percentage of words associated with community-building language (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This research provides practical recommendations for public health practitioners and researchers communicating wildfire smoke risks on social media. As exposures to wildfire smoke rise due to climate change, reducing the environmental disease burden requires health officials to leverage popular communication platforms, distribute necessary health-related messaging rapidly, and get the message right. Timely, evidence-based, and theory-driven messaging is critical for educating and empowering individuals to make informed decisions about protecting themselves from harmful exposures. Thus, proactive and sustained communications about wildfire smoke should be prioritized even during wildfire "off-seasons."

How information processing and risk/benefit perception affect COVID-19 vaccination intention of users in online health communities

Objective

To investigate the relationship among information processing, risk/benefit perception and the COVID-19 vaccination intention of OHCs users with the heuristic-systematic model (HSM).

Methods

This study conducted a cross-sectional questionnaire via an online survey among Chinese adults. A structural equation model (SEM) was used to examine the research hypotheses.

Results

Systematic information processing positively influenced benefit perception, and heuristic information processing positively influenced risk perception. Benefit perception had a significant positive effect on users' vaccination intention. Risk perception had a negative impact on vaccination intention. Findings revealed that differences in information processing methods affect users' perceptions of risk and benefit, which decide their vaccination intention.

Conclusion

Online health communities can provide more systematic cues and users should process information systematically to increase their perceived benefits, consequently increase their willingness to receive COVID-19 vaccine.

Reducing COVID vaccine hesitancy by inducing a comparative mindset

OBJECTIVE

To investigate if a behavioral nudge comprising a vaccination opportunity that employs a comparative probe first (i.e., which vaccine to take) versus the more commonly-used deliberative probe (i.e., willingness to take a vaccine), reduces vaccine hesitancy, while controlling for political partisanship.

METHODS

In a randomized study, conducted on Amazon Mechanical Turk and Prolific, we varied the manner in which the vaccination offer is posed. In one group, participants were asked to compare which vaccine they would like to take (i.e., the comparative probe), while, in another group, participants were asked to deliberate whether they would like to take the vaccine (i.e., the deliberative probe). Participants' political preferences were also measured. The primary outcome variable was vaccine hesitancy.

RESULTS

A LOGIT regression (N = 1736), was conducted to test the research questions. Overall, the comparative probe yielded a 6% reduction in vaccine hesitancy relative to the typical deliberative probe. Additionally, while vaccine hesitancy varies due to individual political views, the comparative probe is effective at reducing vaccine hesitancy even among the most vaccine hesitant population (i.e., Pro-Trump Republicans) by almost 10% on average.

CONCLUSIONS

Subtly changing the manner in which the vaccination offer is framed, by asking people to compare which vaccine to take, and not deliberate about whether they would like to take a vaccine, can reduce vaccine hesitancy, without being psychologically taxing or curtailing individuals' freedom to choose. The nudge is especially effective among highly vaccine hesitant populations such as Pro-Trump Republicans. Our results suggest a costless communication protocol in face-to-face interactions on doorsteps, in clinics, in Pro-Trump regions and in the mass media, that might protect 5 million Americans from COVID-19.