'Who is telling the truth?' Migrants' experiences with COVID-19 related information in Norway: a qualitative study

Living infodemics across borders: experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic among migrants from India living in Norway

During the COVID-19 pandemic, migrants living in Norway navigated a complex "infodemic", which encompassed diverse health information sources from health authorities and media from both local and their home country. This study aimed to explore the experiences of Indian migrants in Norway related to their encounters with varied, and sometimes inaccurate and conflicting information between India and Norway amidst COVID-19 pandemic. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 12 Indian migrants and data was analyzed using thematic analysis. The analysis yielded five main themes: (1) Transnational sources of information, (2) Drivers for trusting information, (3) Transnational healthcare-seeking behavior, (4) Influences underlying decision-making, and (5) Emotional impact of conflicting information. Our findings highlight the complexities of information consumption and its effects on the cognitive-emotional processes of migrants, discussing the role of factors such as familiarity, emotional ties, and trust. Further, the study identified the need for culturally sensitive health communication interventions, the establishment of trust with migrant communities through accurate information dissemination, and the requirement of strategies to support the emotional well-being of migrants in situations when health information varies quickly and differ geographically. The implications of this research extend to the development of effective public health strategies for migrant communities during global health crises.

Critical Insights Into Public Health Interventions: Partnership, Cultural and Racial Tensions, and Vaccine Hesitancy Within Somali Communities in the Upper Midwest, USA, and Western Norway

As the COVID-19 pandemic recedes, SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is crucial for reducing transmission and severity, but vaccine hesitancy remains a challenge. The study explored community actions and initiatives addressing vaccine hesitancy among Somali immigrant communities in cities in the Upper Midwest, USA, and Western Norway, focusing on trust factors and comparing members of the Somali diaspora in two distinct social and cultural contexts. Qualitative collective case studies were conducted, involving 14 semi-structured interviews with key informants from the Upper Midwest and Western Norway knowledgeable about initiatives designed to address SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy. Data were coded in NVivo 12 and analyzed thematically, guided by the Bergen Model of Collaborative Functioning and the Socioecological Model to identify basic and organizational themes. The findings illustrate critical sociopolitical influences on vaccine hesitancy, like racial tensions following George Floyd's murder in Minneapolis and mistrust toward the government in Norway. Effective strategies in the Upper Midwest included maintaining long-term community relationships and culturally tailored outreach and communication to reduce hesitancy. Conversely, Western Norway's less community-centric approach, focusing on translation services without deeper engagement, faced challenges in trust-building. The study highlights the essential role of culturally affirming and community-centric approaches in addressing health challenges in immigrant communities. Trust, fostered through community involvement and understanding sociopolitical contexts, is pivotal in addressing vaccine hesitancy. This research offers insights into designing and implementing effective health promotion strategies tailored to immigrant populations' unique needs. It emphasizes the necessity of integrating socioecological perspectives and community-specific interventions in health promotion practice and policy.

"I Learned Myself": Using Structuration Theory to Uncover Korean Immigrants' Health Literacy Development in the U.S. as an Agentic Behavior During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The health literacy of immigrants has been often viewed in a deficit model. By using structuration theory as a theoretical lens, this study aimed to uncover the health literacy development of Korean immigrants in the U.S. as an agentic behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 20 semi-structured interviews were conducted with Korean immigrants in the U.S. Findings reveal how the participants' experience was shaped by structural forces such as conflicting but co-existing public health systems between the U.S. and Korea, information overload, and the uncertainty surrounding the pandemic. Participants also employed strategies such as constantly comparing the public health guidelines from the two countries, critically appraising the information, deliberately choosing which guideline to follow, combating misinformation, and regulating media consumption. These strategies enabled them to develop health literacy by leveraging their immigrant status as an advantage. Theoretical, practical, and policy implications are discussed.

Childhood vaccination among Polish immigrants in Norway: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Confidence in childhood vaccination is high in Norway and the Norwegian Childhood Immunization Programme (NCIP) achieves high overall coverage rates. However, lower coverage has been observed for some immigrant groups, including Polish immigrants who represent the largest immigrant group in Norway. Anti-vaccine sentiments and increased refusal of mandatory childhood vaccination has been on the rise in Poland, but it is unknown whether such attitudes also apply to Polish immigrants in Norway, as they experience a different vaccination policy and perhaps also different attitudes to vaccines. This qualitative study aims to explore attitudes towards childhood vaccination in Norway among Polish immigrants.

METHODS

We interviewed 15 Polish parents living in Norway in 2022. We recruited the participants by purposive sampling and analyzed the interviews by reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Three themes were identified: views of childhood vaccination, vaccine hesitancy, and differences in childhood vaccination between Poland and Norway. Overall, the participants favored childhood vaccination and viewed most of the vaccines included in the NCIP as safe and reliable. Human papilloma virus, meningococcal and pneumococcal vaccines were declined by some of the parents. Comparisons of childhood vaccination in Poland and Norway was evident in many of the interviews, especially among parents whose children had received vaccines in both countries. The participants were well acquainted with the NCIP, favored voluntary childhood vaccination, and the majority expressed a high level of trust in Norwegian health authorities.

CONCLUSIONS

Polish immigrants to Norway generally expressed positive views about childhood vaccination. Non-vaccination was related to lack of knowledge and/or unfamiliarity with certain vaccines and not with anti-vaccine sentiments or conspiracy theories. The study highlights how parents' knowledge, in combination with norms and trends from both birth country and country of residence, influence parents' decision making about vaccination.

Norwegian "dugnad" as a rhetorical device in public health communication during the COVID-19 pandemic. A qualitative study from immigrant's perspectives

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Norwegian government appealed to the term "national dugnad" in the communication of containment measures as a call for collective action to fight the spread of infection. "Dugnad" is traditionally associated with solidarity, social responsibility, and a communal spirit in the form of volunteer work carried out by a local community. Although the word "dugnad" is difficult to translate to other languages, it was used as a rhetorical device by the government to communicate health-related information during the pandemic. This study aims to explore how immigrants understood and related to the term "dugnad" as used in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in Norway.

METHODS

We conducted 55 semi-structured interviews in 2020 with immigrants from Poland (10), Syria (15), Somalia (10), Sri Lanka (10), and Chile (10). Interviews were conducted in participants' mother-tongues. We used systematic text condensation following Malterud's four steps to analyze the data.

RESULTS

The results are organized into three themes corresponding to: (1) meaning making of the term "dugnad"; (2) attitudes towards the term "dugnad"; and (3) reactions to the use of "dugnad" in a public health context. Overall, participants were familiar with the term "dugnad" and positively associated it with volunteering, unity, and a sense of community. However, we found a variety of reactions towards using this term in a public health context, ranging from agreement to disagreement and irritation.

CONCLUSION

Health communication during pandemics is crucial for maximizing compliance and gaining control of disease spread. In multicultural societies, governments and authorities should be aware of the linguistic and cultural barriers to public health communication if they are to effectively reach the entire population. The use of culturally specific concepts in this context, specially as rhetorical devices, may hinder effective health communication and increase health inequalities.

Manifestation of Health Denialism in Attitudes toward COVID-19 Vaccination: A Qualitative Study

Science denialism is characterized by the refusal to accept existing consensus and available evidence. Typical strategies denialists employ include spreading conspiracies, selective use of information, relying on fake experts, or general fallacies in logic. A flood of misinformation, fake news, and conspiracy theories accompanied the COVID-19 pandemic. Simultaneously, it was a subject of many denialistic opinions, from denying the existence of the epidemic challenge to claims that questioned the safety and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines. This study's main aim was to assess the manifestations of denialism in attitudes toward the preventive measures recommended during the pandemic, with a special focus on vaccination. In-depth interviews were conducted with fifty representatives of the general population, demonstrating diversified opinions about COVID-19 vaccines and other preventive behaviors. The interviews were performed face to face in participants' houses or at other places they identified as convenient. Some of the interviewees preferred to do the interview via teleconference. The interviews were carried out from November 2022 to March 2023. The interviewees were recruited initially by convenience, and in further stages, the snowball technique was used. The interviewees were residents of four main administrative districts in Poland. Out of 50 participants, 26 were males, 29 were between 18-40, 16 were inhabitants of rural areas, and 28 had a university level of education. The interviews were based on a semi-structured guide that addressed, in addition to views about the origin of the new coronavirus, respondents' attitudes toward vaccination and sanitary recommendation, the health status of interviewees, their use of healthcare services, and their health behaviors. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed with MAXQDA Analytics Pro 2022 software (Release 22.7.0). Thematic analysis (TA) was applied to the content generated from the interviews. Based on the uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine, the participants were divided into three groups: unvaccinated, hesitant, and vaccinated (18, 4, and 28 interviewees, respectively). The main themes were established based on the TA of the interviews: attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination, perception of sources of information, and the origin of the new coronavirus. The first theme decidedly drew the greatest attention of the interviewees. There was also a clear relationship between vaccination status and the presence of denialist thinking among interviewees. Interestingly, the role of experts as a key source of information about the pandemic was underlined by study participants. However, the criteria for being an expert differed. The subject of the origin of a new coronavirus was not interesting to interviewees. The analysis of the adherence to preventive measures revealed an interplay of diversified attitudes and motivations. Individuals presenting denialist views most frequently abstained from COVID-19 vaccination. However, such views were also present among those who hesitated or even among those who had been vaccinated. Furthermore, denialism was only one of the determinants of adherence to preventive measures.