Communications to Promote Interest and Confidence in COVID-19 Vaccines

Contributions and Impact of Health Communication Research to Vaccination Efforts and Acceptance

Vaccines (a medical product) and vaccination recommendations (expert advice on who should receive, when, and how often) have grown in importance and prominence in the past 15 years, including because of a recent COVID-19 pandemic. This essay highlights contributions from vaccine and vaccination-related health communication research since 2010. This research has had significant impacts - that is, visible and discernible positive effects - on the ways health communication is undertaken broadly (e.g. at the campaign level) and at the health care provider-patient level (e.g. conversations with parents and patients regarding vaccine benefits, risks, and safety). As this essay illustrates, health communication research has resulted in greater use of formative research to guide vaccination campaign and education efforts, better identification and understanding of the factors behind vaccination delay and declination, and greater recognition that communication efforts can fail to achieve desired outcomes or generate unintended consequences. Health communication research has also documented the powerful influence of healthcare provider communication on parent and patient understanding and compliance with immunization recommendations. Importantly, this research has also shown the characteristics of provider-patient communication matter much. Healthcare providers must have or establish a high degree of trust, be well-versed in vaccine efficacy and safety, and be adept at using their personal experiences, information tailoring/personalization, and evidence-based communication strategies to increase the likelihood of success.

COVID-19 Vaccine Preferences in General Populations in Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States: Discrete Choice Experiment

BACKGROUND

Despite strong evidence supporting COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and safety, a proportion of the population remains hesitant to receive immunization. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) can help assess preferences and decision-making drivers.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to (1) elicit preferences for COVID-19 vaccines in Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States; (2) understand which vaccine attributes people there value; and (3) gain insight into the choices that different population subgroups make regarding COVID-19 vaccines.

METHODS

Participants in the 2019nCoV-408 study were aged ≥18 years; self-reported antivaccinationists were excluded. A DCE with a series of 2 hypothetical vaccine options was embedded into a survey to determine participant treatment preferences (primary objective). Survey questions covered vaccine preference, previous COVID-19 experiences, and demographics, which were summarized using descriptive statistics to understand the study participants' backgrounds. In the DCE, participants were provided choice pairs: 1 set with and 1 without an "opt-out" option. Each participant viewed 11 unique vaccine profiles. Vaccine attributes consisted of type (messenger RNA or protein), level of protection against any or severe COVID-19, risk of side effects (common and serious), and potential coadministration of COVID-19 and influenza vaccines. Attribute level selections were included for protection and safety (degree of effectiveness and side effect risk, respectively). Participants were stratified by vaccination status (unvaccinated, or partially or fully vaccinated) and disease risk group (high-risk or non-high-risk). A conditional logit model was used to analyze DCE data to estimate preferences of vaccine attributes, with the percentage relative importance calculated to allow for its ranking. Each model was run twice to account for sets with and without the opt-out options.

RESULTS

The mean age of participants (N=2000) was 48 (SD 18.8) years, and 51.25% (1025/2000) were male. The DCE revealed that the most important COVID-19 vaccine attributes were protection against severe COVID-19 or any severity of COVID-19 and common side effects. Protection against severe COVID-19 was the most important attribute for fully vaccinated participants, which significantly differed from the unvaccinated or partially vaccinated subgroup (relative importance 34.8% vs 30.6%; P=.049). Avoiding serious vaccine side effects was a significantly higher priority for the unvaccinated or partially versus fully vaccinated subgroup (relative importance 10.7% vs 8.2%; P=.044). Attributes with significant differences in the relative importance between the high-risk versus non-high-risk subgroups were protection against severe COVID-19 (38.2% vs 31.5%; P<.000), avoiding common vaccine side effects (12% vs 20.5%; P<.000), and avoiding serious vaccine side effects (9.7% vs 7.5%; P=.002).

CONCLUSIONS

This DCE identified COVID-19 vaccine attributes, such as protection against severe COVID-19, that may influence preference and drive choice and can inform vaccine strategies. The high ranking of common and serious vaccine side effects suggests that, when the efficacy of 2 vaccines is comparable, safety is a key decision-making factor.

Elevating Home Health Aide Input in Co-Creation of COVID-19 Vaccine Messaging

Home health aides (HHAs) care for patients highly vulnerable to COVID-19 and are disproportionately women from minority communities that have been adversely impacted by COVID-19. Yet, direct care workers are less likely to be vaccinated against COVID-19 compared to others. As the pandemic evolves, interest in vaccination may decrease suggesting the need for relevant vaccine messaging to HHAs. Objectives: (1) to describe HHAs and administrators' perspectives related to COVID-19 vaccination messaging, and (2) to co-design a Communication Toolkit to create COVID-19 vaccine messages. Methods: HHAs and administrators from 4 geographically diverse Palliative Care Research Cooperative (PCRC) hospice agencies were recruited for a multi-method process involving qualitative interviews (17 HHAs and 5 administrators), community engagement (CE) studios, and development of a Communication Toolkit. Interviews were guided by the PEN-3 conceptual framework to explore barriers and facilitators to vaccination. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Results: Despite power differences, HHAs and administrators share a commitment to protecting patients affected by serious illness. HHAs desire vaccine messaging that includes personal narratives, good news about the vaccine, and facts about benefits and risks of the vaccine. Preferred message formats include the agency intranet, daily briefings, or "little seeds" (ie, short, high-impact information). Through the studios, HHAs provided input on a Toolkit prototype with messages tailored to the context of home care. Conclusions: Grounded in the commitment of HHAs and administrators to protecting vulnerable patients, we co-created an adaptable Communication Toolkit to address COVID-19 vaccination misinformation and mistrust among direct care workers.

Misinformation does not reduce trust in accurate search results, but warning banners may backfire

People rely on search engines for information in critical contexts, such as public health emergencies-but what makes people trust some search results more than others? Can search engines influence people's levels of trust by controlling how information is presented? And, how does the presence of misinformation influence people's trust? Research has identified both rank and the presence of misinformation as factors impacting people's search behavior. Here, we extend these findings by measuring the effects of these factors, as well as misinformation warning banners, on the perceived trustworthiness of individual search results. We conducted three online experiments (N = 3196) using Covid-19-related queries, and found that although higher-ranked results are clicked more often, they are not more trusted. We also showed that misinformation does not damage trust in accurate results displayed below it. In contrast, while a warning about unreliable sources might decrease trust in misinformation, it significantly decreases trust in accurate information. This research alleviates some concerns about how people evaluate the credibility of information they find online, while revealing a potential backfire effect of one misinformation-prevention approach; namely, that banner warnings about source unreliability could lead to unexpected and nonoptimal outcomes in which people trust accurate information less.

Predictors of COVID-19 vaccine uptake: an online three-wave survey study of US adults

BACKGROUND

To effectively promote vaccine uptake, it is important to understand which people are most and least inclined to be vaccinated and why. In this study, we examined predictors of COVID-19 vaccine uptake and reasons for non-vaccination.

METHODS

We conducted an online English-language survey study in December-2020, January-2021, and March-2021. A total of 930 US respondents completed all surveys. Multiple logistic regression models were run to test whether the early vaccine eligibility, demographic factors, and psychological factors predict getting at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccination in January-2021 and in March-2021.

RESULTS

The proportion of respondents who received ≥ 1-dose of a COVID-19 vaccine increased from 18% (January) to 67% (March). Older age predicted vaccine uptake in January (OR = 2.02[95%CI = 1.14-3.78], p < .001) and March (10.92[6.76-18.05], p < .001). In January, additional predictors were higher numeracy (1.48[1.20-1.86], p < .001), COVID-19 risk perceptions (1.35[1.03-1.78], p = .029), and believing it is important adults get the COVID-19 vaccine (1.66[1.05-2.66], p = .033). In March, additional predictors of uptake were believing it is important adults get the COVID-19 vaccine (1.63[1.15-2.34], p = .006), prior COVID-19 vaccine intentions (1.37[1.10-1.72], p = .006), and belief in science (0.84[0.72-0.99], p = .041). Concerns about side effects and the development process were the most common reasons for non-vaccination. Unvaccinated respondents with no interest in getting a COVID-19 vaccine were younger (0.27[0.09-0.77], p = .016), held negative views about COVID-19 vaccines for adults (0.15[0.08-0.26], p < .001), had lower trust in healthcare (0.59[0.36-0.95], p = .032), and preferred to watch and wait in clinically ambiguous medical situations (0.66[0.48-0.89], p = .007).

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence that attitudes and intentions towards COVID-19 vaccines were important predictors of uptake provides validation for studies using these measures and reinforces the need to develop strategies for addressing safety and development concerns which remain at the forefront of vaccine hesitancy.

The Worrying Phenomenon of COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy and Its Negative Impact on Pandemic Control Efforts: Common Themes that Emerged in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Region

Since the declaration of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as a pandemic, intensive measures were taken to mitigate its negative health, psychological, social, and economic impact. COVID-19 continues to pose serious threats globally, with vaccination as the central safe strategy to control the pandemic. However, COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is a major concern, especially in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). Concerns regarding vaccine safety, efficacy, and misinformation contribute to vaccine hesitancy. Addressing these concerns and providing accurate information is crucial for increasing COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and uptake in this region, where the coverage is low. Variable rates of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy were found in the numerous studies conducted in the region. Complex factors contributed to vaccination hesitancy in the region including concerns about COVID-19 vaccine safety and efficacy, low trust in healthcare systems, complacency toward the risks of COVID-19, constraints hindering access to COVID-19 vaccination services, as well as the circulation of misinformation and conspiracy beliefs about COVID-19 and its vaccination. Effective approaches to address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the MENA region rely on developing evidence-based communication strategies that are recommended to build trust in vaccination, highlight the disease risks, and counter COVID-19 vaccine-related misinformation. Ensuring COVID-19 vaccine affordability is also necessary besides the cautious consideration of implementing COVID-19 vaccine mandates. Based on the preceding discussion, this chapter aims to identify the common themes of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the MENA region. In addition, the chapter highlights the importance of understanding the root causes of COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy and its associated determinants to develop effective strategies for promoting COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and uptake in the MENA region. To build community trust, promote community education and awareness, and counter misinformation for better COVID-19 vaccine coverage in the region, it is recommended to involve healthcare professionals and policymakers.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Among US Adults: Safety and Effectiveness Perceptions and Messaging to Increase Vaccine Confidence and Intent to Vaccinate

OBJECTIVE

Public health agencies have a critical role in providing effective messaging about mitigation strategies during a public health emergency. The objectives of this study were (1) to understand perceptions of COVID-19 vaccines, including concerns about side effects, safety, and effectiveness and how these perceptions influence vaccine decision-making among US adults and (2) to learn what messages might motivate vaccine uptake.

METHODS

In April and May 2021, we conducted 14 online focus groups with non-Hispanic English-speaking and English- and Spanish-speaking Hispanic adults (N = 99) not vaccinated against COVID-19. We oversampled adults aged 18-39 years and rural residents and systematically assessed 10 test messages. Researchers used a standardized guide and an a priori codebook for focus group discussions, coding transcripts, and thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Vaccine hesitancy factors included fear of the unknown; long-term side effects, including infertility; and beliefs that the vaccines were developed too quickly and were not sufficiently effective. Motivating factors for receiving vaccination included the ability to safely socialize and travel. Health care providers were considered important trusted messengers. Participants were critical of most messages tested. Messages that came across as "honest" about what is not yet known about COVID-19 vaccines were perceived more positively than other messages tested. Messages were seen as ineffective if perceived as vague or lacking in data and specificity.

CONCLUSIONS

Messages that were simple and transparent about what is unknown about vaccines relative to emerging science were viewed most favorably. Health care providers, friends, and family were considered influential in vaccination decision-making. Findings underscore the benefits of research-informed strategies for developing and disseminating effective messages addressing critical issues in a public health emergency.

Impact of prior COVID-19 infection on perceptions about the benefit and safety of COVID-19 vaccines

In this online survey of 1,733 US adults in December 2021, respondents believed COVID-19 vaccines are less beneficial and less safe for someone who had already had COVID-19. Those who experienced COVID-19 after being vaccinated believed that the vaccines are less beneficial and less safe than those who had not. Findings highlight the need to better communicate evolving evidence of COVID-19 vaccine benefit and safety and to tailor communications to peoples' COVID-19 history and vaccination status.

Demographic, structural, and psychological predictors of risk-increasing and mask wearing behaviors among US adults between December 2020-March 2021

OBJECTIVES

To assess demographic, structural, and psychological predictors of risk-increasing and risk-decreasing behaviors METHODS: This study used data from an online longitudinal, three-wave COVID-19 survey (12/20-03/21) regarding the behaviors, attitudes, and experiences of US Veteran (n = 584) and non-Veteran (n = 346) adults.

RESULTS

Inability to get groceries delivered emerged as the strongest predictor of more frequent risk-increasing behavior across all timepoints. Other consistent predictors of more frequent risk-increasing behavior and less frequent mask wearing included less worry about getting COVID-19, disbelief in science, belief in COVID-19 conspiracies, and negative perceptions of the state response. No demographic factor consistently predicted risk-increasing behavior or mask wearing, though different demographic predictors emerged for more frequent risk-increasing behaviors (e.g., lower health literacy) and mask-wearing (e.g., older age and urban residence) at certain timepoints. The most frequently endorsed reasons for having contact with others concerned health-related (food, medical care, and exercise) and social needs (seeing friends/family and boredom).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings highlight key individual-level determinants of risk-increasing behaviors and mask wearing which encompass demographic, structural, and psychological factors.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Findings can support public health experts and health communicators promote engagement with risk-reducing behaviors and address key barriers to engaging in these behaviors.

The Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Vaccination Hesitancy: A Viewpoint

Vaccination hesitancy is considered by the World Health Organization as a danger to global health. In recent years, vaccine hesitancy rates to COVID-19 have been studied worldwide. In our study, we aim to provide an overview of the concept of vaccine hesitancy, with regard to the post-COVID era, and to provide prevention and management strategies. A search of the international literature until March 2023 was conducted in the PubMed database. The 5723 papers found were divided into two groups: prior to the COVID-19 era and from 2021 onward. Papers about the vaccine hesitation phenomenon are becoming more common during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and following the marketing that the vaccine companies have carried out on the different types of COVID-19 vaccines. It is advisable that healthcare authorities, at the national and international level, as well as healthcare professionals, at the local level, should promote a series of activities to reduce the vaccine hesitancy rate.

A Qualitative Investigation on COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in Neurodivergent Communities

Vaccine hesitancy is a major barrier to vaccination, hindering the success of vaccine efforts and thereby increasing public health risk to viral diseases, including COVID-19. Neurodivergent (ND) individuals, including individuals with an intellectual and/or developmental disability, have demonstrated a heightened risk of hospitalization and death due to COVID-19, highlighting the need for further research specifically on ND communities. We conducted a qualitative analysis using in-depth interviews with medical professionals, non-medical health professionals and communicators, and ND individuals or their caregivers. Using a thematic coding analysis methodology, trained coders identified major themes according to 24 distinct codes spanning across the categories of (1) barriers to vaccination; (2) facilitators to vaccination; and (3) suggestions for improving vaccine confidence. Qualitative findings identify misinformation, perception of vaccine risk, sensory sensitivities, and structural hardship as the most significant barriers to COVID-19 vaccination. We highlight the importance of accommodations to vaccination for the ND community alongside coordinated efforts by healthcare leaders to direct their communities to accurate sources of medical information. This work will inform the direction of future research on vaccine hesitancy, and the development of programs specific to the ND community's access to vaccines.

Coronavirus Disease-2019 Vaccine Hesitancy

Early in the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, before coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) vaccines were authorized, surveys began tracking public acceptance of a hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine. As vaccines became more widely available, the focus shifted from evaluating premeditative thoughts about COVID-19 vaccines to observing behaviors, measuring uptake, and characterizing factors associated with acceptance. A wealth of peer-reviewed literature examining the complexities of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance has emerged, but our understanding of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance is constantly evolving. In this article, we review the current state of knowledge regarding COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, with an emphasis on pediatric vaccination.

COVID-19 vaccine communication and advocacy strategy: a social marketing campaign for increasing COVID-19 vaccine uptake in South Korea

Research evidence suggests that communication is a powerful tool for influencing public opinion and attitudes toward various health-related issues, such as vaccine reluctance, provided it is well-designed and thoughtfully conducted. In particular, social marketing techniques that alter the target audience's behaviors for the public good can substantially improve vaccine uptake if adopted as a communication strategy in immunization programs to counter public hesitancy. This study presents evidence from the Korean government's current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination campaign, which successfully applied a social marketing approach. By the end of August 2022, South Korea had achieved high vaccine coverage, with 94.8% of the population (12+) receiving a second dose, 71.3% a third dose, and a fourth dose drive currently underway. There are five crucial factors to consider when preparing official communication for an immunization program: (i) a high degree of proactiveness, (ii) credibility, (iii) fighting misinformation, (iv) emphasizing social norms and prosocial behavior, and (v) coherence. Although using social marketing strategies may not be successful in all circumstances, the lessons learned and current implementation in Korea suggest their efficacy in fostering vaccine acceptance. This study offers valuable insights for government agencies and global public health practitioners to develop effective targeted campaign strategies that enhance the target population's vaccination intention.

The Individuals’ Willingness to Get the Vaccine for COVID-19 during the Third Wave: A Study on Trust in Mainstream Information Sources, Attitudes and Framing Effect

Different inner and external determinants might explain an individual’s willingness to get the vaccine for COVID-19. The current study aims at evaluating the effects of trust in mainstream information sources on individuals’ willingness to get the vaccine and the moderator role of the message framing. Six hundred and thirty-four participants (68.5% females and 31.5% males) were enrolled in an online survey. Participants filled out a questionnaire assessing: trust in mainstream information sources and vaccinal attitude (trust in vaccine benefit, worries over unforeseen future effects, concerns about commercial profiteering, and preference for natural immunity). In addition, participants were randomly exposed to one of four conditions of framing information about the vaccine (gain-probability; gain-frequency; loss-probability; loss-frequency). Results showed that trust in vaccine benefit (b = 9.90; 95% CI: 8.97, 11.73) and concerns about commercial profiteering (b = −4.70; 95% CI: −6.58, −2.81) had a significant effect on the intention to get the vaccine. Further, a significant interaction was observed between loss-gain and trust in vaccine benefit and between frequency-probability and concerns about commercial profiteering. Future vaccination campaigns should consider the individuals’ concerns about vaccine benefit and economic profits to efficaciously deliver frequency-framed or probability-framed information.

Communicating about COVID-19 vaccine development and safety

PURPOSE

Beliefs that the risks from a COVID-19 vaccine outweigh the risks from getting COVID-19 and concerns that the vaccine development process was rushed and lacking rigor have been identified as important drivers of hesitancy and refusal to get a COVID-19 vaccine. We tested whether messages designed to address these beliefs and concerns might promote intentions to get a COVID-19 vaccine.

METHOD

We conducted an online survey fielded between March 8-23, 2021 with US Veteran (n = 688) and non-Veteran (n = 387) respondents. In a between-subjects experiment, respondents were randomly assigned to a control group (with no message) or to read one of two intervention messages: 1. a fact-box styled message comparing the risks of getting COVID-19 compared to the vaccine, and 2. a timeline styled message describing the development process of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

RESULTS

Most respondents (60%) wanted a COVID-19 vaccine. However, 17% expressed hesitancy and 23% did not want to get a COVID-19 vaccine. The fact-box styled message and the timeline message did not significantly improve vaccination intentions, F(2,358) = 0.86, p = .425, [Formula: see text] = .005, or reduce the time respondents wanted to wait before getting vaccinated, F(2,306) = 0.79, p = .453, [Formula: see text] = .005, compared to no messages.

DISCUSSION

In this experimental study, we did not find that providing messages about vaccine risks and the development process had an impact on respondents' vaccine intentions. Further research is needed to identify how to effectively address concerns about the risks associated with COVID-19 vaccines and the development process and to understand additional factors that influence vaccine intentions.