Opinion and uptake of chloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 during the mandatory lockdown in the sub-Saharan African region

The impact of information sources on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and resistance in sub-Saharan Africa

BACKGROUND

Vaccination remains the most powerful weapon against the emergence of new variants of coronavirus (COVID-19). However, false information about COVID-19 vaccines through various platforms including social media remains a major threat to global public health. This study examined the impact of information sources on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and resistance in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA).

METHODS

A validated web-based cross-sectional study was conducted from 14 March to 16 May 2021, and was administered in both French and English to 2572 participants aged 18 years and over. Data on sociodemographic characteristics, medical and vaccination history, and the information sources (mainstream media and social media) used by the participants during the pandemic were obtained. There were three main outcomes: The vaccinated group were those who responded in the affirmation (Yes) to the question of whether they have been vaccinated against COVID-19. Those who responded 'not sure' or 'no' to the question were then asked if they were willing to be vaccinated when the vaccine became available in their home countries. The responses to this follow-up question were used to derive the second and third outcome variables of 'vaccine hesitancy' and 'vaccine resistance', respectively. A series of logistic regression analyses were used to examine the impact of information sources on the three main outcomes.

RESULTS

The prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among the participants was lowest among newspaper readers (42%) and highest among TV (72%) and social media users (73%). The prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine-resistance was also lowest among newspaper readers (37%) but highest among social media users (87%). Multivariate analyses revealed that compared to those who did not use these information sources, SSA participants who relied on the radio (aOR 0.83, 95%CI = 0.70, 0.99), TV (aOR 0.80, 95%CI = 0.65, 0.97) and social media (aOR 0.79, 95%CI = 0.65, 0.97) for information during the pandemic were less likely to be hesitant towards taking the vaccines. However, social media users (aOR 2.13, 95%CI = 1.62, 2.80), those who watched TV (aOR 1.40, 95%CI =1.08, 1.80), relied on healthcare workers (HCWs: aOR 1.32, 95%CI = 1.07, 1.63) and families/friends (aOR 1.31, 95%CI = 1.06, 1.61) for COVID-19 related information during the pandemic were more likely to resist taking the COVID vaccines in this study. Participants who relied on the newspaper for information during the pandemic were less likely to resist the vaccines (aOR 0.77, 95%CI = 0.62, 0.95) compared to non-readers of a newspaper.

CONCLUSION

We found that all six information sources except radio were strong predictors of the resistance towards COVID-19 vaccination. Further research on how these channels can be used to improve the availability of reliable healthcare information is needed. Investments in these resources will protect people and empower them to make appropriate choices about their health.

Does the public know when a scientific controversy is over? Public perceptions of hydroxychloroquine in France between April 2020 and June 2021

Objectives

In the early stages of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, chloroquine and its derivatives such as hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) were widely commented upon both within the scientific community and in the media. This paper explores the different factors that influenced public perceptions in France of the efficacy of HCQ as well as their evolution between April 2020 and June 2021.

Methods

This article draws on 5 surveys conducted among representative samples of the French population (projects COCONEL and TRACTRUST; quota method, n = 1006; 1004; 2006; 1014 and 1005). We asked questions on the effectiveness of chloroquine against COVID-19. We also collected sociodemographic variables and attitudes toward politics and science.

Results

Between April and June 2021, the proportion of respondents who believed in the efficacy of HCQ decreased rapidly from 35% to 14%. The proportion of respondents who believed that HCQ is ineffective rose gradually from 6% to 21%. After adjusting for the temporal effect, the logistic regression showed a very strong association between political orientation and the belief in the efficacy of HCQ. Respondents who felt closest to the more radical parties (far-right and far-left) were more likely to believe in the efficacy of HCQ than those who felt closest to the political center (O.R. 2.48 [1.95–3.15] and 1.87 [1.44–2.43]). The role of trust in the government and in science and of the degree of political engagement were investigated in the two waves conducted after the scientific consensus was established during the summer of 2020. High levels of trust in the government and in science and of politicization are associated with belief of HCQ proven inefficacy. Across the whole period, a majority of respondents were uncertain. Even in 2021, 41.5% stated that the data were insufficient to decide whether or not HCQ is effective and 25.2% stating that they did not know.

Conclusion

Because media coverage of scientific controversies is higher in times of uncertainty than after these controversies have died down, the publicization of therapeutic promises can have lasting consequences on attitudes towards science and medicine.