A Taxonomy of Non-honesty in Public Health Communication

An effective COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy intervention focused on the relative risks of vaccination and infection

We designed the Relative Risk Tool (RRT) to help people assess the relative risks associated with COVID-19 vaccination and infection. In May 2022 (N = 400) and November 2022 (N = 615), U.S. residents participated in a survey that included questions about the risks of vaccination and infection. In both cohorts, we found an association between relative risk perception and vaccine hesitancy. Participants in the May cohort were randomly assigned an intervention: to see information from the RRT or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). After the intervention, participants answered the same questions about risk perception and vaccination intent again. The RRT was more effective than the CDC at changing risk perception and increasing vaccination intent. In November, the survey structure was the same, but the RRT was the only intervention included, and we confirmed that the RRT was effective at changing opinions in this new sample. Importantly, the RRT provided accurate information about the risks of serious adverse outcomes to vaccination and still increased vaccination intent. Our work suggests that the RRT helps people assess relative risk, which can in turn help empower them to make informed decisions and ultimately reduce vaccine hesitancy.

The impact of nontransparent health communication during the COVID-19 pandemic on vaccine-hesitant people's perception of vaccines

Background

Although transparency is crucial for building public trust, public health communication during the COVID-19 pandemic was often nontransparent.

Methods

In a cross-sectional online study with COVID-19 vaccine-hesitant German residents (N = 763), we explored the impact of COVID-19 public health communication on the attitudes of vaccine-hesitant individuals toward vaccines as well as their perceptions of incomprehensible and incomplete information. We also investigated whether specific formats of public health messaging were perceived as more trustworthy.

Results

Of the 763 participants, 90 (11.8%) said they had become more open-minded toward vaccines in general, 408 (53.5%) reported no change, and 265 (34.7%) said they had become more skeptical as a result of public health communication on COVID-19 vaccines. These subgroups differed in how incomprehensible they found public health communication and whether they thought information had been missing. Participants' ranking of trustworthy public health messaging did not provide clear-cut results: the fully transparent message, which reported the benefit and harms in terms of absolute risk, and the nontransparent message, which reported only the benefit in terms of relative risk were both considered equally trustworthy (p = 0.848).

Discussion

Increased skepticism about vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic may have partly been fueled by subpar public health communication. Given the importance of public trust for coping with future health crises, public health communicators should ensure that their messaging is clear and transparent.