Story and science: how providers and parents can utilize storytelling to combat anti-vaccine misinformation

Refuting misinformation: Examining theoretical underpinnings of refutational interventions

With the proliferation of misinformation have come toolkits that include refutation strategies to target the beliefs of individuals that can be employed preemptively (prebunking) or reactively (debunking). Whereas the theoretical lineage of prebunking is well established within the literature on inoculation theory, the theoretical underpinning of debunking is not. Recent advances in inoculation theory include fostering resistance to a type of message rather than to the content of a message as well as application of messages in both prophylactic and therapeutic situations. Theoretically rooted within studies of conceptual change, fresh insights on debunking interventions derive from knowledge revision models, the Misinformation Receptivity Framework, as well as empirical evidence on the efficacy of narrative correctives and counters.

Protocol for a community-based digital storytelling pilot intervention to reduce Hispanic parents' vaccine hesitancy to immunize their children against COVID-19

COVID-19 vaccines, currently available to children over six months old, are a powerful method of reducing the risk of COVID-19-related hospitalizations and death. However, vaccination rates among Hispanic children remain suboptimal, primarily due to parental vaccine hesitancy. Health communication researchers have suggested using culturally aligned storytelling to reduce vaccine hesitancy; however, few studies have evaluated this approach for Hispanic parents of unvaccinated children. Working with community health workers, we will engage Hispanic parents who were previously hesitant to vaccinate their child(ren) against COVID-19 but currently support vaccination. We will ask them to share their stories of conversion in COVID-19 vaccine perspectives to help other parents overcome their mistrust of COVID-19 vaccines. We will then assess the feasibility and acceptability of a web-based pilot digital storytelling intervention based on these conversion stories vs. an information-only control among 80 parents and/or legal guardians of children who are not up-to-date with COVID-19 vaccines. We will also examine pre- to post-intervention changes in vaccine perceptions, hesitancy, intentions, and uptake of children's COVID-19 vaccination at two months post-intervention. If our pilot study demonstrates feasibility and acceptability while reducing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and increasing vaccine uptake, we will conduct a full-scale randomized controlled trial to examine the effectiveness of the DST intervention to reduce vaccine hesitancy.

Community Partnership to Co-Develop an Intervention to Promote Equitable Uptake of the COVID-19 Vaccine Among Pediatric Populations

Objective

To describe the process of engaging community, caregiver, and youth partners in codeveloping an intervention to promote equitable uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine in non-Hispanic Black (Black) and Hispanic youth who experience higher rates of COVID-19 transmission, morbidity, and mortality but were less likely to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

Methods

A team of 11 Black and Hispanic community partners was assembled to codevelop intervention strategies with our interdisciplinary research team. We used a mixed-methods crowdsourcing approach with Black and Hispanic youth (n=15) and caregivers of Black and Hispanic youth (n=20) who had not yet been vaccinated against COVID-19, recruited from primary care clinics, to elicit perspectives on the acceptability of these intervention strategies.

Results

We codeveloped five strategies: (1) community-tailored handouts and posters, (2) videos featuring local youth, (3) family-centered language to offer vaccines in the primary care clinic, (4) communication-skills training for primary care providers, and (5) use of community health workers to counsel families about the vaccine. The majority (56-96.9%) of youth and caregivers rated each of these strategies as acceptable, especially because they addressed common concerns and facilitated shared decision-making.

Conclusions

Engaging community and family partners led to the co-development of culturally- and locally-tailored strategies to promote dialogue and shared decision-making about the COVID-19 vaccine. This process can be used to codevelop interventions to address other forms of public health disparities.

Policy Implications

Intervention strategies that promote dialogues with trusted healthcare providers and support shared decision-making are acceptable strategies to promote COVID-19 vaccine uptake among youth from historically underserved communities. Stakeholder-engaged methods may also help in the development of interventions to address other forms of health disparities.

#4Corners4Health Social Media Cancer Prevention Campaign for Emerging Adults: Protocol for a Randomized Stepped-Wedge Trial

BACKGROUND

Many emerging adults (EAs) are prone to making unhealthy choices, which increase their risk of premature cancer morbidity and mortality. In the era of social media, rigorous research on interventions to promote health behaviors for cancer risk reduction among EAs delivered over social media is limited. Cancer prevention information and recommendations may reach EAs more effectively over social media than in settings such as health care, schools, and workplaces, particularly for EAs residing in rural areas.

OBJECTIVE

This pragmatic randomized trial aims to evaluate a multirisk factor intervention using a social media campaign designed with community advisers aimed at decreasing cancer risk factors among EAs. The trial will target EAs from diverse backgrounds living in rural counties in the Four Corners states of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah.

METHODS

We will recruit a sample of EAs (n=1000) aged 18 to 26 years residing in rural counties (Rural-Urban Continuum Codes 4 to 9) in the Four Corners states from the Qualtrics' research panel and enroll them in a randomized stepped-wedge, quasi-experimental design. The inclusion criteria include English proficiency and regular social media engagement. A social media intervention will promote guideline-related goals for increased physical activity, healthy eating, and human papillomavirus vaccination and reduced nicotine product use, alcohol intake, and solar UV radiation exposure. Campaign posts will cover digital and media literacy skills, responses to misinformation, communication with family and friends, and referral to community resources. The intervention will be delivered over 12 months in Facebook private groups and will be guided by advisory groups of community stakeholders and EAs and focus groups with EAs. The EAs will complete assessments at baseline and at 12, 26, 39, 52, and 104 weeks after randomization. Assessments will measure 6 cancer risk behaviors, theoretical mediators, and participants' engagement with the social media campaign.

RESULTS

The trial is in its start-up phase. It is being led by a steering committee. Team members are working in 3 subcommittees to optimize community engagement, the social media intervention, and the measures to be used. The Stakeholder Organization Advisory Board and Emerging Adult Advisory Board were formed and provided initial input on the priority of cancer risk factors to target, social media use by EAs, and community resources available. A framework for the social media campaign with topics, format, and theoretical mediators has been created, along with protocols for campaign management.

CONCLUSIONS

Social media can be used as a platform to counter misinformation and improve reliable health information to promote health behaviors that reduce cancer risks among EAs. Because of the popularity of web-based information sources among EAs, an innovative, multirisk factor intervention using a social media campaign has the potential to reduce their cancer risk behaviors.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05618158; https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05618158.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/50392.

The Facts or the Story? It Takes Both to Sensitize People About Unknown Health Hazards

Communicating about new or unknown health risks is challenging because it requires audiences to engage with and process novel and often complex health information. This study examines how texts can convey awareness and increase knowledge about health risks people are unaware of. The focus is on how text genre (narrative, expository, and mixed-genre) affects relevant emotional (arousal, transportation) and cognitive outcomes (knowledge and risk severity), measured using both online (electrodermal activity) and offline self-report measures. Mixed-effects model analyses revealed that narrative texts exhibit the highest self-reported arousal, transportation, and risk severity. Additionally, transportation mediates the relationship between text genre and risk severity. Ultimately, mixed-genre texts produced significantly higher arousal peaks and confidence ratings on knowledge posttests compared to expository texts. Taken together, the findings suggest that narrative texts perform better at raising awareness, whereas mixed-genre texts seem more effective in learning. The implications for health risk communication are discussed.

Evidence-Based Storytelling for a Strategic Roadmap to Promote Cancer Prevention via Adolescent HPV Vaccination in Northern New England

Vaccination rates for the human papillomavirus (HPV) among rural youth in northern New England lag those of more urbanized areas. Reasons include a lack of available medical offices, time constraints, perceptions of vaccines and HPV, and, to a smaller degree, delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. We have a responsibility to increase vaccinations in these communities. To do so, vaccination experts recommend addressing the three C's of vaccination hesitation: confidence, complacency, and convenience. With this framework as our foundation, in this article we detail a plan to address these important elements, and we add several more C's: clinics, communication, collaboration, community, capacity, and commitment to the list as we discuss the essential pieces-human, infrastructural, and perceptual-needed to create and promote successful, community-supported, school-based HPV vaccination clinics to serve youths aged nine to 18. We then integrate research and storytelling science into an innovative Persuasion Playbook, a guide for local opinion leaders to use in creating evidence-based, pro-vaccine messages on the community level to promote the clinics via evidence-based, pro-vaccination messages.

COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy: ambiguity in decision-making

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, pregnant women/people were identified as an at-risk group of severe COVID-19 disease. Consequently, vaccine uptake among this group became a public health priority. However, the relationship between pregnancy and vaccination decision-making is complex, and the heightened uncertainty and anxiety produced through the pandemic further exacerbated this immunization decision. This study explores COVID-19 vaccination decision-making during pregnancy in Aotearoa New Zealand by using an online story completion survey tool. Ninety-five responses were received and analysed using thematic analysis where ambiguity was a core facet within and across stories. Three ambiguities were identified, including who makes the decision (agential), what the risks are (risk) and how immunity to this threat can be best achieved (immunity). We discuss the implications of this ambiguity and how the strong desire to protect the baby persisted across accounts. The recognition of the rather persistent ambiguity in vaccination decision-making helps conceptualize influencing factors taken into account in a more nuanced manner for further research, public health campaigns and health professionals. Future public health campaigns can consider redistributing responsibility for vaccination decision-making in pregnancy, traverse an either/or perspective of 'natural' and 'artificial' immunity-boosting and consider how risk is perceived through anecdotes and viral immediacy.

Comparing the effects of simple and refutational narratives in misinformation correction: The moderating roles of correction placement and issue involvement

The study examines whether adding a refutational ending to narrative messages improves correction effectiveness and how the effect differs depending on whether the correction message is presented before or after exposure to misinformation. A 2 (narrative format: simple vs refutational narrative) × 2 (correction placement: prebunking vs debunking) between-subjects online experiment (N = 281) with US participants was conducted to correct misinformation about human papilloma virus vaccines. The results suggested that the refutational narrative was more effective in reducing misbeliefs in prebunking, whereas the simple narrative was more effective in debunking. This interaction was further moderated by issue involvement. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

The Use of Narrative in Science and Health Communication: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Many people deny science and reject health recommendations despite widely distributed facts and statistics. Didactic science and health communication is often dry, and relies on the false assumption that people make purely evidence-based decisions. Stories can be a powerful teaching tool by capturing attention and evoking emotion.

OBJECTIVE

We explore the impact and appeal of, and describe best practices for, using narrative (storytelling) versus didactic methods in science and health communication.

PATIENT INVOLVEMENT

No patients were involved in the review process.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Web of Science for articles either: assessing effectiveness of narrative science/health communication; assessing acceptability of (or preference for) narrative science/health communication; giving advice on how best to use narrative; and/or providing science-based explanations for how/why narrative succeeds.

RESULTS

Narrative science/health communication is effective and appealing for audiences across a variety of topics and mediums, with supporting evidence across fields such as epidemiology, neuroscience, and psychology. Whether narrative or didactic messaging is most effective depends on the topic, audience, and objective, as well as message quality. However, combining narrative with didactic methods is likely to be more effective than using either strategy alone.

DISCUSSION

Narrative science/health communication merits wider implementation and further research. Narrative communication creates openness to information by delaying the formulation of counterarguments.

PRACTICAL VALUE

Science and health communicators should collaborate with cultural and storytelling experts, work directly with their target audiences throughout the message development and testing processes, and rely on popular story elements (e.g., first-person point of view, relatable protagonists) to improve the comprehension, engagement, and thoughtful consideration of their intended audience.

FUNDING

This work was funded by Thirty Meter Telescope, with which two authors (GKS and SD) were affiliated. Otherwise, the funding organization had no role in the study and/or submission.

The Process of Responding to COVID-19 Misinformation in a Social Media Feed

Misinformation can undermine public health recommendations. Our team evaluated a 9-week social media campaign promoting COVID-19 prevention to mothers (n = 303) of teen daughters in January-March 2021. We implemented an epidemiological model for monitoring, diagnosing, and responding quickly to misinformation from mothers. Overall, 54 comments out of 1617 total comments (3.3%) from 20 mothers (6.6% of sample) contained misinformation. Misinformation was presented in direct statements and indirectly as hypothetical questions, source derogation, and personal stories, and attributed to others. Misinformation occurred most (n = 40; 74%) in comments on vaccination posts. The community manager responded to 48 (89%) misinformation comments by acknowledging the comment and rebutting misinformation. No mothers who provided misinformation left the Facebook groups and a few commented again (n = 10) or reacted (n = 3) to responses. Only a small number of comments conveyed misinformation. Our quick-response epidemiological protocol appeared to prevent debate and dropout and exposed these mothers to credible information.

Intervention studies to encourage HPV vaccination using narrative: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed to provide an overview of intervention studies that aimed to encourage HPV vaccination using narratives.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and PsycARTICLES for English language articles that quantitatively examined the persuasive effect of narratives on encouraging HPV vaccination through interventions.

RESULTS

A total of 25 studies were identified. Most studies were conducted in the United States of America, adopted a convenient sampling of university students, measured vaccination intention as the primary outcome, and used text messages in the interventions. A minority of the studies measured vaccination behavior and examined the long-term effects of persuasion. Narratives were as effective as didactics and statistics in encouraging HPV vaccination in most included studies. The findings were mixed or scarce for the effect of combining narratives and statistics, and the person (the first vs. third), narrator, framing, and content of narratives.

CONCLUSION

More findings from a broader range of well-designed studies are needed to determine which narratives can encourage HPV vaccination across different populations.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Findings indicated using narratives can be a part of repertoire of messages encouraging HPV vaccination.

Supporting US healthcare providers for successful vaccine communication

BACKGROUND

While many healthcare providers (HCPs) have navigated patients' vaccine concerns and questions prior to the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines, sentiments surrounding the COVID-19 vaccines have presented new and distinct challenges.

OBJECTIVE

To understand the provider experience of counseling patients about COVID-19 vaccinations, aspects of the pandemic environment that impacted vaccine trust, and communication strategies providers found supportive of patient vaccine education.

METHODS

7 focus groups of healthcare providers were conducted and recorded during December 2021 and January 2022, at the height of the Omicron wave in the United States. Recordings were transcribed, and iterative coding and analysis was applied.

RESULTS

44 focus group participants representing 24 US states with the majority (80%) fully vaccinated at the time of data collection. Most participants were doctors (34%) or physician's assistants and nurse practitioners (34%). The negative impact of COVID-19 misinformation on patient-provider communication at both intrapersonal and interpersonal levels as well as barriers and facilitators to patient vaccine uptake are reported. People or sources that play a role in health communication ("messengers") and persuasive messages that impact behavior or attitudes towards vaccination ("messages") are described. Providers expressed frustration in the need to continuously address vaccine misinformation in clinical appointments among patients who remained unvaccinated. Many providers found value in resources that provided up-to-date and evidence-based information as COVID-19 guidelines continued to change. Additionally, providers indicated that patient-facing materials designed to support vaccination education were not frequently available, but they were the most valuable to providers in a changing information environment.

CONCLUSIONS

While vaccine decision-making is complex and hinges on diverse factors such as health care access (i.e., convenience, expense) and individual knowledge, providers can play a major role in navigating these factors with their patients. But to strengthen provider vaccine communication and promote vaccine uptake, a comprehensive communication infrastructure must be sustained to support the patient-provider dyad. The findings provide recommendations to maintain an environment that facilitates effective provider-patient communication at the community, organizational and policy levels. There is a need for a unified multisectoral response to reinforce the recommendations in patient settings.

Identifying intervention strategies to improve HPV vaccine decision-making using behaviour change theory

Although the HPV vaccine is highly safe and effective, its uptake is sub-optimal in many countries, including Ireland. There is therefore a need to identify appropriate interventions that will increase HPV vaccine acceptance by parents. In this study, we took a systematic approach to understand the factors that influence HPV vaccine uptake by parents of adolescent girls in Ireland to define suitable behaviour change interventions that would support positive vaccine decision-making in the future. Specifically, we conducted semi-structured interviews, used a Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF)-based topic guide, to gain insight into the knowledge, beliefs, attitudes and current behaviours of parents with respect to their HPV vaccine decision. Transcripts were analysed using the TDF. The Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) was used to identify relevant intervention functions and the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy version 1 (BCTTv1), to identify relevant intervention techniques. All parents discussed the essential role of healthcare providers in vaccine decision-making. Complacency and confidence were important factors in decision-making by vaccine hesitant parents. Five BCW intervention functions were identified as appropriate, namely; education; persuasion; environmental restructuring; modelling and enablement. To our knowledge, this is the first study to systematically evaluate HPV vaccine decision-making using behaviour change theory and identify suitable intervention strategies to promote positive vaccine decision-making using this approach.

The Effects of Offering Freedom to Comply by Pediatricians and Nurses, Using the But-You-Are-Free (BYAF) Technique, on Vaccination Compliance on 185 Parents of Newborn Babies Conducted in Outpatient Clinics in Poland Between January 2022 and July 2022

BACKGROUND This study aimed to evaluate, in outpatient clinics in Poland between January 2022 and July 2022, the effectiveness of the But-You-Are-Free (BYAF) social influence technique by healthcare professionals during interaction with 185 parents deciding about vaccinating (eg, Hexacima, Prevenor 13, Synflorix, Rotateq, Act Hib, Boostrix, Pentaxim, DTP, Imovax, Priorix, MMR, Tetracim, Adacel, Euvax B, Fuvax, FSME, Varilix, Nimenrix, Bexero vaccines) their babies. MATERIAL AND METHODS During an interaction with pediatricians or nurses, the parents were encouraged to vaccinate their babies. In experimental condition (111 interactions), the BYAF technique was employed, and the phrase "But you are free" was added at the end of the conversation. In the control condition (74 interactions), it was not employed. RESULTS In the experimental condition, 71 (64%) participants declared intention to vaccinate their children. In the control condition, it 61 (84%) participants declared intention to vaccinate (the difference in percentages was significant: P=0.006). The number of parents who actually vaccinated their babies in the experimental condition was 92 (83%) and in the control condition it was 70 (95%; P=0.018). CONCLUSIONS The findings showed that participants who were exposed to the BYAF technique declared lower intentions to vaccinate their babies, and vaccinated them less often than those in the control condition. This result critically highlights that this technique should not be employed in the medical settings of pediatric vaccination.

Tailoring interventions to suit self-reported format preference does not decrease vaccine hesitancy

Individually tailored vaccine hesitancy interventions are considered auspicious for decreasing vaccine hesitancy. In two studies, we measured self-reported format preference for statistical vs. anecdotal information in vaccine hesitant individuals, and experimentally manipulated the format in which COVID-19 and influenza vaccine hesitancy interventions were presented (statistical vs. anecdotal). Regardless of whether people received interventions that were in line with their format preference, the interventions did not influence their vaccine attitudes or vaccination intentions. Instead, a stronger preference for anecdotal information was associated with perceiving the material in both the statistical and the anecdotal interventions as more frustrating, less relevant, and less helpful. However, even if the participants reacted negatively to both intervention formats, the reactions to the statistical interventions were consistently less negative. These results suggest that tailoring COVID-19 and influenza vaccine hesitancy interventions to suit people's format preference, might not be a viable tool for decreasing vaccine hesitancy. The results further imply that using statistics-only interventions with people who hold anti-vaccination attitudes may be a less risky choice than using only anecdotal testimonies.

Raising the HPV Vaccination Rate in Rural Northern New England Using Local Opinion Leaders

The human papillomavirus is associated with a range of cancers. A vaccine introduced in 2006 has dramatically decreased the incidence of these cancers, but Americans still experience over 47,000 new cases of HPV-related cancers each year. The situation is worse in rural areas, where vaccination rates lag the national average, making HPV a significant health disparity issue. This article lays out an evidence-based HPV vaccine-promotion strategy that will serve as part of a campaign to improve health equity in rural northern New England in a process that is repeatable and sustainable. The campaign includes the following elements: partnerships with state departments of health and trusted community opinion leaders, evidence-based storytelling, local social media, traditional media, and school-based pop-up vaccination clinics. Borrowing from marketing and social marketing frameworks and guided by public health perspectives, we begin with psychographic and geodemographic information about our target audience, followed by a discussion about relevant models, frameworks, and research related to persuasive storytelling. We conclude with the outline of a guidebook to foster the creation of persuasive stories as part of a sustainable, replicable HPV vaccination campaign.

Factors Associated with Cancer Message Believability: a Mixed Methods Study on Simulated Facebook Posts

The ability to share and obtain health information on social media (SM) places higher burden on individuals to evaluate the believability of such health messages given the growing nature of misinformation circulating on SM. Message features (i.e., format, veracity), message source, and an individual's health literacy all play significant roles in how a person evaluates health messages on SM. This study assesses how message features and SM users' health literacy predict assessment of message believability and time spent looking at simulated Facebook messages. SM users (N = 53) participated in a mixed methods experimental study, using eye-tracking technology, to measure relative time and message believability. Measures included individual health literacy, message format (narrative/non-narrative), and information veracity (evidence-based/non-evidence-based). Results showed individuals with adequate health literacy rated evidence-based posts as more believable than non-evidence-based posts. Additionally, individuals with limited health literacy spent more relative time on the source compared to individuals with adequate health literacy. Public health and health communication efforts should focus on addressing myths and misinformation found on SM. Additionally, the source of message may be equally important when evaluating messages on SM, and strategies should identify reliable sources to prevent limited health literate individuals from falling prey to misinformation.

How to counter the anti-vaccine rhetoric: Filling information voids and building resilience

Widely circulating anti-vaccine misinformation online has been constituting a large obstacle for the success of COVID-19 vaccination campaigns and for the well-being of people during the pandemic. In this paper we discuss strategies to mitigate negative effects of online anti-vaccine contents on public health and to prevent hesitant individuals from falling prey of the traps set by anti-vaccine disinformation spreaders. Here we discuss the importance of filling information voids and understanding trends and concerns that shape the vaccine debate, and we highlight the relevance of building resilience to vaccine misinformation by strengthening public health and digital literacy.

Exploring metaphor's communicative effects in reasoning on vaccination

INTRODUCTION

The paper investigates the impact of the use of metaphors in reasoning tasks concerning vaccination, especially for defeasible reasoning cases. We assumed that both metaphor and defeasible reasoning can be relevant to let people understand vaccination as an important collective health phenomenon, by anticipating possible defeating conditions.

METHODS

We hypothesized that extended metaphor could improve both the argumentative and the communicative effects of the message. We designed an empirical study to test our main hypotheses: participants (N = 196, 78% females; Meanage = 27.97 years, SDage = 10.40) were presented with a text about vaccination, described in either literal or metaphorical terms, based on uncertain vs. safe reasoning scenarios.

RESULTS

The results of the study confirmed that defeasible reasoning is relevant for the communicative impact of a text and that an extended metaphor enhances the overall communicative effects of the message, in terms of understandability, persuasion, perceived safety, and feeling of control over the health situation, collective trust in expertise and uptake of experts' advice. However, the results show that this effect is significantly nuanced by the type of defeasible reasoning, especially in the case of participants' trust in expertise and commitment to experts' advice.

CONCLUSION

Both communicative and defeasible reasoning competences are needed to enhance trust in immunization, with possible different outcomes at an individual and collective level.

When do people believe, check, and share health rumors on social media? Effects of evidence type, health literacy, and health knowledge

Vaccine rumors on social media endanger public health. This study examined how evidence types influenced perceived persuasiveness and relevance and engagement intentions of vaccine rumors. We conducted a 2 (evidence type: anecdotes vs. anecdotal statistics) × 2 (stance: pro-vaccine rumor vs. anti-vaccine rumor) online experiment (N = 551) and surveyed participants' health literacy and vaccine knowledge. Anecdotal statistics were perceived as more relevant than anecdotes and indirectly influenced perceived persuasiveness and behavior intentions. This finding was confirmed when vaccine rumors were pro-attitudinal. Health literacy positively predicted perceived persuasiveness; health knowledge negatively predicted relevance and behavior intentions. Practical implications and future research directions are discussed.

Exploring factors that influence COVID-19 vaccination intention in China: Media use preference, knowledge level and risk perception

Vaccine is one of the most effective means to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic in many countries, but vaccine hesitancy has been always widespread among people due to individual differences in access to vaccine information. This research aims to empirically investigate the relationship between media use preference (video-based and text-based), knowledge level, risk perception and willingness to vaccinate among Chinese residents. A cross-sectional survey of a Chinese sample (N = 885) was carried out to explore factors that influence the COVID-19 vaccination intention of Chinese residents. The empirical results show that the knowledge level and risk perception of Chinese residents positively contribute to vaccination intention. People with video-usage preference have lower levels of knowledge about the COVID-19 vaccine than those with text-usage preference. People’s risk perception of the COVID-19 pandemic is not influenced by their media use preference or knowledge level, as COVID-19 is a global pandemic and a significant social risk. The current study yields health-related implications for the role of media use preference in vaccination intention.

Impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on virality on social media: Content analysis of message themes and writing strategies

Background

Vaccines serve an integral role in containing pandemics, yet vaccine hesitancy is prevalent globally. One key reason for this hesitancy is the pervasiveness of misinformation on social media. Although considerable research attention has been drawn to how exposure to misinformation is closely associated with vaccine hesitancy, little scholarly attention has been given to the investigation or robust theorizing of the various content themes pertaining to antivaccine misinformation about COVID-19 and the writing strategies in which these content themes are manifested. Virality of such content on social media exhibited in the form of comments, shares, and reactions has practical implications for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

Objective

We investigated whether there were differences in the content themes and writing strategies used to disseminate antivaccine misinformation about COVID-19 and their impact on virality on social media.

Methods

We constructed an antivaccine misinformation database from major social media platforms during September 2019-August 2021 to examine how misinformation exhibited in the form of content themes and how these themes manifested in writing were associated with virality in terms of likes, comments, and shares. Antivaccine misinformation was retrieved from two globally leading and widely cited fake news databases, COVID Global Misinformation Dashboard and International Fact-Checking Network Corona Virus Facts Alliance Database, which aim to track and debunk COVID-19 misinformation. We primarily focused on 140 Facebook posts, since most antivaccine misinformation posts on COVID-19 were found on Facebook. We then employed quantitative content analysis to examine the content themes (ie, safety concerns, conspiracy theories, efficacy concerns) and manifestation strategies of misinformation (ie, mimicking of news and scientific reports in terms of the format and language features, use of a conversational style, use of amplification) in these posts and their association with virality of misinformation in the form of likes, comments, and shares.

Results

Our study revealed that safety concern was the most prominent content theme and a negative predictor of likes and shares. Regarding the writing strategies manifested in content themes, a conversational style and mimicking of news and scientific reports via the format and language features were frequently employed in COVID-19 antivaccine misinformation, with the latter being a positive predictor of likes.

Conclusions

This study contributes to a richer research-informed understanding of which concerns about content theme and manifestation strategy need to be countered on antivaccine misinformation circulating on social media so that accurate information on COVID-19 vaccines can be disseminated to the public, ultimately reducing vaccine hesitancy. The liking of COVID-19 antivaccine posts that employ language features to mimic news or scientific reports is perturbing since a large audience can be reached on social media, potentially exacerbating the spread of misinformation and hampering global efforts to combat the virus.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy, Acceptance, and Promotion Among Healthcare Workers: A Mixed-Methods Analysis

Even with vaccine mandates, COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy remains a concern among healthcare workers, in part due to their role in promoting vaccination among patients and communities. To examine COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, acceptance, and promotion among healthcare workers, we conducted a mixed-methods analysis of (1) survey responses about COVID-19 vaccination and (2) Twitter messages (i.e., tweets) relevant to COVID-19 vaccination and healthcare. A total of 540 hospital employees completed the survey. Those that completed less than 80% of the survey or did not endorse employment at the hospital were excluded, resulting in a total of 511 valid responses; 93.2% reported receiving at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Approximately 1/3 of vaccinated individuals indicated they posted about receiving the vaccine on social media. Simultaneously, we analyzed a sample of 3845 tweets; 2299 (60%) were relevant to COVID-19 vaccination and 1863 (81%) were coded as authored by an individual. Of tweets authored by an individual, 6% (n = 106) were authored by a healthcare provider/health sciences student. Among relevant tweets, the most frequent code across all sentiment categories was related to the pharmaceutical industry (n = 529 tweets, 28%; n = 33, 31% of tweets authored by healthcare workers). Triangulation of results found themes including vaccine access, trust, and vaccine safety or negative health impacts. Results suggest that promoting the sharing of COVID-19 vaccine personal narratives on social media, combined with interventions targeting specific reasons for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and emphasizing freedom from fear once vaccinated could be effective at reducing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among this population.

Self-reported COVID-19 vaccination acceptance and hesitancy among autistic adults

Identifying factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination acceptance among vulnerable groups, including autistic individuals, can increase vaccination rates and support public health. The purpose of this study was to determine differences among autistic adults who reported COVID-19 vaccination acceptance from those who did not. In this study we describe COVID-19 vaccination status and self-reported preferences among autistic adults and identify related factors. Vaccine accepters were more likely to report increased loneliness during COVID-19, lived in more populous counties (p = 0.02), and lived in counties won by President Biden in the 2020 US presidential election (p < 0.001). Positive correlations were found between desire to protect others, concern about contracting COVID-19, and trusting vaccine safety (p < 0.001). Concern about vaccine safety was common among the vaccine hesitant, while lack of concern about COVID-19 overall was not. Identifying health promotion strategies based on self-reported, lived experiences about COVID-19 among vulnerable groups is key for public health impact.

An Online Experiment of NHS Information Framing on Mothers’ Vaccination Intention of Children against COVID-19

Children under the age of 5, will likely all be offered vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 soon. Parental concerns over vaccination of children are long standing and could impede the success of a vaccination campaign. In the UK, a trusted source to inform vaccination choices is the NHS website. Here we used a randomized controlled experiment of framing effects in NHS information content for COVID-19 and flu with 550 mothers under the age of 5. We compared both vaccination offers following two commonly used frames in vaccination informational campaigns: alerting to the risks of no vaccination for the child itself vs. those in their community. We find that vaccination intention was twice as high when risks to the child are emphasized, relative to risks to the community. Exploratory analyses suggest that these effects may differ between white and non-white mothers. Whilst communication directed at adult vaccination against COVID-19 generally focuses on risks of infecting others, communication about vaccination of children may benefit from emphasizing risks to the children themselves. This pattern is in line with flu vaccination research from pre-COVID-19 times.

Intervention studies to encourage vaccination using narrative: a systematic scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Vaccine hesitancy is a global problem, impeding uptake of vaccines against measles, mumps, and rubella and those against human papillomavirus and COVID-19. Effective communication strategy is needed to address vaccine hesitancy. To guide the development of research in the field and the development of effective strategies for vaccine communication, this scoping review aims to analyse studies of interventions using narrative to encourage vaccination.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will search the following databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and PsycARTICLES. We will identify additional literature by searching the reference lists of eligible studies. Eligible studies will be those that quantitatively examined the persuasiveness of narrative to encourage vaccination. Two independent reviewers will screen the titles, abstracts and full texts of all studies identified. Two independent reviewers will share the responsibility for data extraction and verification. Discrepancies will be resolved through consensus. Data such as study characteristics, participant characteristics, methodology, main results and theoretical foundation will be extracted. The findings will be synthesised in a descriptive and a narrative review.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This work does not warrant any ethical or safety concerns. This scoping review will be presented at a relevant conference and published in a peer-reviewed journal.

COVID-19-Related Vaccine Hesitancy among Community Hospitals’ Healthcare Workers in Singapore

COVID-19 has culminated in widespread infections and increased deaths over the last 3 years. In addition, it has also resulted in collateral economic and geopolitical tensions. Vaccination remains one of the cornerstones in the fight against COVID-19. Vaccine hesitancy must be critically evaluated in individual countries to promote vaccine uptake. We describe a survey conducted in three Singapore community hospitals looking at healthcare workers’ vaccine hesitancy and the barriers for its uptake. The online anonymous survey was conducted from March to July 2021 on all staff across three community hospital sites in SingHealth Singapore. The questionnaire was developed following a scoping review and was pilot tested and finalized into a 58-item instrument capturing data on demographics, contextual features, knowledge, attitudes, perceptions, and other vaccine-related factors in the vaccine hesitancy matrix. Logistic regression analysis was employed for all co-variates that are significant in univariate analysis. The response rate was 23.9%, and the vaccine hesitancy prevalence was 48.5% in the initial phase of the pandemic. On logistic regression analysis, only being female, a younger age, not having had a loved one or friend infected with COVID-19 and obtaining information from newspapers were associated with vaccine hesitancy in healthcare workers in Singapore community hospitals.

Clinical data to be used as a foundation to combat Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy

The coronavirus has become the paramount subject in peoples' lives, affecting and disrupting virtually every aspect of society, as the pandemic casts a shadow over the world. The facts, myths, and conspiracy theories centered on the Covid-19 pandemic have dominated social media accounts, local and national newspapers, as well as television programs. Strategies need to be evolved to counter Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy and mitigate health disparities in at-risk populations. Overcoming misinformation and distrust will require an interdisciplinary approach to deal with Covid-19. The purpose of this review is to offer a factual basis to all healthcare providers to assist in framing strategies to mitigate vaccine hesitancy and achieve herd immunity to combat the deadly Covid-19 pandemic. First an overview of the discovery of the viruses and their molecular structures will be presented. Secondly, a historical perspective is offered, comparing the differences between the 1918 flu pandemic and the current covid-19 pandemic. Lastly, an overview for proposed techniques and methods to counter and or mitigate covid-19 vaccine misinformation that may be used by an interdisciplinary team will be offered narratively and graphically.

COVID-19 health misinformation: using design-based research to develop a theoretical framework for intervention

Purpose

Because health misinformation pertaining to COVID-19 is a serious threat to public health, the purpose of this study is to develop a framework to guide an online intervention into some of the drivers of health misinformation online. This framework can be iterated upon through the use of design-based research to continue to develop further interventions as needed.

Design/methodology/approach

Using design-based research methods, in this paper, the authors develop a theoretical framework for addressing COVID-19 misinformation. Using a heuristic analysis of research on vaccine misinformation and hesitancy, the authors propose a framework for education interventions that use the narrative effect of transportation as a means to increase knowledge of the drivers of misinformation online.

Findings

This heuristic analysis determined that a key element of narrative transportation includes orientation towards particular audiences. Research indicates that mothers are the most significant household decision-makers with respect to vaccines and family health in general; the authors suggest narrative interventions should be tailored specifically to meet their interests and tastes, and that this may be different for mothers of different backgrounds and cultural communities.

Originality/value

While there is a significant body of literature on vaccine hesitancy and vaccine misinformation, more research is needed that helps people understand the ways in which misinformation works upon social media users. The framework developed in this research guided the development of an education intervention meant to facilitate this understanding.

Parents' Behaviors and Experiences Associated with Four Vaccination Behavior Groups for Childhood Vaccine Hesitancy

Objectives

Increasing vaccine hesitancy and decreasing acceptance of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) recommended schedule for childhood vaccines represent a crucial public health issue. The present study directly compares vaccine acceptance behavior across four different groups: those who are fully accepting of the CDC-recommended schedule, those who are accepting but on a delayed schedule, those who only partially vaccinate, and those who do not vaccinate at all.

Methods

A total of 779 adults residing in the United States with at least one child under the age of 18 years participated in an online survey.

Results

Logistic and Ordinary Least Squares regression analyses revealed clear differences between the vaccination behavior groups on a variety of demographic, psychographic, and behavioral metrics. Results suggest financial and insurance-related barriers still hinder full vaccination, and there are differences by race, ethnicity, and educational attainment. Sources of information about vaccines also differed by vaccination behavior group, with those who never vaccinate more likely to rely on friends and family for information. Finally, those whose child experienced what the parent interpreted as an adverse reaction to a previous vaccine, even if that reaction was within the bounds of “normal”, were more likely to report they delay or partially vaccinate.

Conclusions for practice

These results have implications for public health policy and intervention campaigns, in particular that two-step flow campaigns and increased knowledge of normal vaccine side effects may ameliorate some vaccine hesitancy.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10995-021-03336-8.

Providing a Second Opinion to Dr. Google with the WWW Framework

While clinicians are often aware that their patients seek second opinions, they are rarely taught specific skills for how to effectively communicate with patients when they are the ones providing that second opinion. The nuances of these skills are amplified when the second opinion being provided is to the ubiquitous (and often anonymous) Dr. Google. In this perspective, the authors share an approach for discussing a patient's pre-visit health-related internet findings. After emphasizing the importance of setting the stage, they describe the WWW Framework which proposes "waiting" before responding with data, getting to the "what" of the patient's search, and "working together" to negotiate a plan. This stepwise approach is designed to provide psychological safety, build a therapeutic alliance, and empower collaborative treatment planning.

Design Principles for an Educational Intervention Into Online Vaccine Misinformation

As part of a design-based research effort into disrupting the spread of COVID-19 misinformation, we have iteratively designed, developed, and evaluated a learning intervention intended for public audiences. In this paper we describe the design principles we created to guide our applied research into education on the topic of online misinformation. The six principles guiding our design are: microlearning; equity; relevance and appeal to learners; interventions that do not inadvertently spread misinformation; effective counter messaging; and engagement on an emotional level. These principles are grounded on equitable design, anti-misinformation design, and emotional design.

Medical and Health-related Misinformation on Social Media: Analysis of the Scientific Literature

Background

Social media has been extensively used for the communication of health-related information and consecutively for the potential spread of medical misinformation. Conventional systematic reviews have been published on this topic to identify original articles and to summarize their methodological approaches and themes. A bibliometric study could complement their findings, for instance, by evaluating the geographical distribution of the publications and determining if they were well cited and disseminated in high-impact journals.

Objective

The aim of this study was to perform a bibliometric analysis of the current literature to discover the prevalent trends and topics related to medical misinformation on social media.

Methods

The Web of Science Core Collection electronic database was accessed to identify relevant papers with the following search string: ALL=(misinformati* OR “wrong informati*” OR disinformati* OR “misleading informati*” OR “fake news*”) AND ALL=(medic* OR illness* OR disease* OR health* OR pharma* OR drug* OR therap*) AND ALL=(“social media*” OR Facebook* OR Twitter* OR Instagram* OR YouTube* OR Weibo* OR Whatsapp* OR Reddit* OR TikTok* OR WeChat*). Full records were exported to a bibliometric software, VOSviewer, to link bibliographic information with citation data. Term and keyword maps were created to illustrate recurring terms and keywords.

Results

Based on an analysis of 529 papers on medical and health-related misinformation on social media, we found that the most popularly investigated social media platforms were Twitter (n=90), YouTube (n=67), and Facebook (n=57). Articles targeting these 3 platforms had higher citations per paper (>13.7) than articles covering other social media platforms (Instagram, Weibo, WhatsApp, Reddit, and WeChat; citations per paper <8.7). Moreover, social media platform–specific papers accounted for 44.1% (233/529) of all identified publications. Investigations on these platforms had different foci. Twitter-based research explored cyberchondria and hypochondriasis, YouTube-based research explored tobacco smoking, and Facebook-based research studied vaccine hesitancy related to autism. COVID-19 was a common topic investigated across all platforms. Overall, the United States contributed to half of all identified papers, and 80% of the top 10 most productive institutions were based in this country. The identified papers were mostly published in journals of the categories public environmental and occupational health, communication, health care sciences services, medical informatics, and medicine general internal, with the top journal being the Journal of Medical Internet Research.

Conclusions

There is a significant platform-specific topic preference for social media investigations on medical misinformation. With a large population of internet users from China, it may be reasonably expected that Weibo, WeChat, and TikTok (and its Chinese version Douyin) would be more investigated in future studies. Currently, these platforms present research gaps that leave their usage and information dissemination warranting further evaluation. Future studies should also include social platforms targeting non-English users to provide a wider global perspective.

Mechanisms of self-persuasion intervention for HPV vaccination: Testing memory and autonomous motivation

Objective: Optimizing a self-persuasion intervention app for adolescent HPV vaccination requires investigating its hypothesized mechanisms. Guided by the experimental medicine approach, we tested whether (a) self-persuasion intervention components (verbalize vaccination reasons, choose HPV topics) changed putative mechanisms (memory, autonomous motivation) and (b) measures of the putative mechanisms were associated with HPV vaccination. Method: These are secondary analyses from a randomized 2 (cognitive processing: verbalize reasons vs. listen) × 2 (choice: choose HPV topics vs. assigned) factorial trial (Tiro et al., 2016). Undecided parents (N = 161) with an unvaccinated child (11-17 years old) used the self-persuasion app, recalled reasons for vaccination (memory measure), and completed an autonomous motivation measure. Adolescent vaccination status was extracted from electronic medical records 12 months postintervention. Results: The verbalize component resulted in greater recall accuracy of vaccination reasons (p < .001); however, the choose topics component did not increase autonomous motivation scores (p = .74). For associations with HPV vaccination, recall accuracy was not associated (ps > .51), but autonomous motivation scores significantly predicted vaccination (ps < .03), except when controlling for baseline motivation (p = .22). Conclusion: The intervention app engages parents in reasons for vaccination; however, memory may not be a viable mechanism of vaccination. Although the intervention did not affect autonomous motivation, associations with vaccination status suggest it is a viable intervention target for HPV vaccination but alternative strategies to change it are needed. Future testing of a refined app should examine implementation strategies to optimize delivery in clinical or community settings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Development of Personas to Communicate Narrative-Based Information About the HPV Vaccine on Twitter

Introduction: Personas are based on real-life typologies of people that can be used to create characters and messages to communicate important health information through relatable narrative storylines. Persona development is data-driven and can involve multiple phases of formative research and evaluation; however, personas are largely underutilized in digital health research. The purpose of this study was to create and document persona development to deliver narrative-focused health education for parents on Twitter with the goal of increasing uptake of HPV vaccination among adolescents.

Methods: Leveraging data from a mixed-method study conducted in the U.S. with a diverse population of parents with adolescents ages 9–14, we used both qualitative and quantitative data (e.g., the National Immunization Survey—Teen, focus groups, and social media) to create personas. These data sources were used to identify and develop key characteristics for personas to reflect a range of parents and their diverse understandings and experiences related to HPV vaccination. A parent advisory board provided insight and helped refine persona development.

Results: Four personas emerged and were characterized as the (1) Informed Altruist, (2) Real Talker, (3) Information Gatherer, and (4) Supporter. Characteristics differed across personas and provided insights into targeted narrative strategies. Described attributes included demographics, psychographics, communication style, vaccine goals and aspirations, vaccine challenges and frustrations, and vaccine hesitancy.

Discussion: This work demonstrates how multiple data sources can be used to create personas to deliver social media messages that can address the diverse preferences and needs of parents for HPV vaccine information. With increasing usage of social media for health information among parents, it is important for researchers to consider marketing and design thinking to create health communication messages that resonate with audiences.

Parents' Intentions and Perceptions About COVID-19 Vaccination for Their Children: Results From a National Survey

OBJECTIVES

Assess the degree to which US parents are likely to have their children get coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines and identify parental concerns about the vaccines.

METHODS

In February 2021 to March 2021, we surveyed parent members of a nationally representative probability-based Internet panel of ∼9000 adults regarding their intent to have their children receive a COVID-19 vaccination, perceptions of COVID-19 vaccines for children, and trust in sources of information about COVID-19 vaccines for children. We used descriptive and multivariate analyses to evaluate parent-stated likelihood of having their children get a COVID-19 vaccine and to assess the association between likelihood of child COVID-19 vaccination and child age, parent demographics, and parental perceptions about COVID-19 vaccines.

RESULTS

Altogether, 1745 parents responded (87% of eligible parents, 3759 children). Likelihood of child COVID-19 vaccination was as follows: very likely (28%), somewhat likely (18%), somewhat unlikely (9%), very unlikely (33%), and unsure (12%). The stated likelihood of child vaccination was greater among parents of older children (P < .001) as well as among parents who had a bachelor's degree or higher education (P < .001), had already received or were likely to receive a COVID-19 vaccine (P < .001), or had Democratic affiliation (P < .001); variations existed by race and ethnicity (P = .04). Parental concerns centered around vaccine safety and side effects. A key trusted source of information about COVID-19 vaccines for children was the child's doctor.

CONCLUSIONS

Less than one-half of US participants report that they are likely to have their child receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Pediatric health care providers have a major role in promoting and giving COVID-19 vaccination for children.

Vaccine hesitancy and reported non-vaccination in an Irish pediatric outpatient population

Vaccine hesitancy is defined as a delay in acceptance, or refusal, of vaccines, despite availability. It is a complex and context specific phenomenon and identified as a global health priority. The "Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines" (PACV) questionnaire is a validated tool for identifying vaccine hesitancy. Our aim was to use the PACV to assess vaccine hesitancy and its relationship with reported non-vaccination in an Irish population, for the first time. Our participants were parents or caregivers of children attending general pediatric clinics in a tertiary pediatric hospital in Dublin, Ireland, between September and December 2018. In total, 436 participants completed the questionnaire. 5.5% of our population reported non-vaccination. Human papilloma virus and measles, mumps, rubella vaccines were the most commonly cited vaccines of concern (11.5% and 6.7%, respectively), and autism spectrum disorder was the most commonly side effect of concern (4.3%). Mean PACV score was 26.9 (SD 19.1), with a significant difference between non-vaccinators and vaccinators (53.2 vs 25.3, p<0.001). Safety and efficacy concerns were the major contributor to non-vaccination. 14.4% of our population were vaccine-hesitant using the conventional cut-off score, which increased to 22% when using an optimal cut-off which maximized sensitivity and specificity. The accuracy of the PACV score to identify non-vaccination was good (area under the ROC curve = 0.827), and the optimal cut-off had a high negative predictive value (98.5%).Conclusion: PACV identified reported non-vaccination with high accuracy in our population. It may be useful to screen vaccine-hesitant parents who could benefit from interventions to improve uptake. What is Known: • Vaccine hesitancy is a leading threat to global health, with falls in vaccine uptake associated with disease outbreaks worldwide. • The Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines (PACV) questionnaire is a validated measure of vaccine hesitancy and correlates with non-vaccination in many populations. What is New: • This large study in a pediatric outpatient clinic setting represents the first use of the PACV in a Western European population to assess vaccination hesitancy. • The PACV may be an effective way of screening a pediatric clinic population to identify vaccine-hesitant parents or caregivers for targeted vaccine promotion.

Understanding COVID-19 misinformation and vaccine hesitancy in context: Findings from a qualitative study involving citizens in Bradford, UK

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 vaccines can offer a route out of the pandemic, yet initial research suggests that many are unwilling to be vaccinated. A rise in the spread of misinformation is thought to have played a significant role in vaccine hesitancy. To maximize uptake, it is important to understand why misinformation has been able to take hold at this time and why it may pose a more significant problem within certain contexts.

OBJECTIVE

To understand people's COVID-19 beliefs, their interactions with (mis)information during COVID-19 and attitudes towards a COVID-19 vaccine.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

Bradford, UK, was chosen as the study site to provide evidence to local decision makers. In-depth phone interviews were carried out with 20 people from different ethnic groups and areas of Bradford during Autumn 2020. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Participants discussed a wide range of COVID-19 misinformation they had encountered, resulting in confusion, distress and mistrust. Vaccine hesitancy could be attributed to three prominent factors: safety concerns, negative stories and personal knowledge. The more confused, distressed and mistrusting participants felt about their social worlds during the pandemic, the less positive they were about a vaccine.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy needs to be understood in the context of the relationship between the spread of misinformation and associated emotional reactions. Vaccine programmes should provide a focused, localized and empathetic response to counter misinformation.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

A rapid community and stakeholder engagement process was undertaken to identify COVID-19 priority topics important to Bradford citizens and decision makers.

What Arguments against COVID-19 Vaccines Run on Facebook in Poland: Content Analysis of Comments

Social media allow anti-vaxxers to quickly spread misinformation and false statements. This situation may lead to an increase in vaccine hesitancy. We wanted to characterize what arguments against COVID-19 vaccines run on Facebook in Poland. We analyzed Facebook comments related to the five events of the introduction of COVID-19 vaccines—announcements of the efficacy of the Pfizer-BioNTech (09.11.2020), Moderna (16.11.2020), and AstraZeneca (23.11.2020) vaccines, registration of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine by the European Medicines Agency (21.12.2020), and the first vaccination in Poland (27.12.2020). We collected the comments from fanpages of the biggest Polish media and then established their main anti-vaccine themes. We found that the negative arguments about COVID-19 vaccines can be divided into 12 categories. Seven of them are universal and also apply to other vaccines but five are new and COVID-19’ specific. The frequency of arguments from a given category varied over time. We also noticed that, while the comments were mostly negative, the reactions were positive. Created codebook of anti-vaccine COVID-19 arguments can be used to monitor the attitude of society towards COVID-19 vaccines. Real-time monitoring of social media is important because the popularity of certain arguments on Facebook changes rapidly over time.

Vaccine hesitancy and anti-vaccination in the time of COVID-19: A Google Trends analysis

The COVID-19 pandemic has produced many calls for a vaccine. There is growing concern that vaccine hesitancy and anti-vaccination presence will dampen the uptake of a coronavirus vaccine. There are many cited reasons for vaccine hesitancy. Mercury content, autism association, and vaccine danger have been commonly found in anti-vaccination messages. It is also mused that the reduced disease burden from infectious diseases has paradoxically reduced the perceived requirement for vaccine uptake. Our analysis using Google Trends has shown that throughout the pandemic the search interest in a coronavirus vaccine has increased and remained high throughout. Peaks are found when public declarations are made, the case number increases significantly, or when vaccine breakthroughs are announced. Anti-vaccine searches, in the context of COVID-19, have had a continued and growing presence during the pandemic. Contrary to what some may believe, the burden of coronavirus has not been enough to dissuade anti-vaccine searches entirely.

Scoping review protocol on the use of social media for health research purposes

INTRODUCTION

More than one-third of the world population uses at least one form of social media. Since their advent in 2005, health-oriented research based on social media data has largely increased as discussions about health issues are broadly shared online and generate a large amount of health-related data. The objective of this scoping review is to provide an evidence map of the various uses of social media for health research purposes, their fields of applications and their analysis methods.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This scoping review will follow the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework (2005) as well as the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's manual. Relevant publications will be first searched on the PudMed/MEDLINE database and then on Web of Science. We will focus on literature published between January 2005 and April 2020. All articles related to the use of social media or networks for health-oriented research purposes will be included. A first search will be conducted with some keywords in order to identify relevant articles. After identifying the research strategy, a two-part study selection process will be systematically applied by two reviewers. The first part consists of screening titles and abstracts found, thanks to the search strategy, to define the eligibility of each article. In the second part, the full texts will be screened and only relevant articles will be kept. Data will finally be extracted, collated and charted to summarise all the relevant methods, outcomes and key findings in the articles.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This scoping review will provide an extensive overview of the use of social media for health research purposes. Opportunities as well as future ethical, methodological and technical challenges will also be discussed based on our findings to define a new research agenda. Results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication.

The alleviation effect of knowledge integration on anxiety in parental vaccine decision-making supported by online communities

Purpose

To support vaccine decision-making, a growing number of parents use online communities to obtain informational and emotional support; however, relatively high information heterogeneity and polarization in the online environment make it challenging for parents to make informed vaccine decisions based on the systematic processing of conflicting information. In this context, this study aims to focus on the relationship between parents’ knowledge integration and rational and experiential decision-making and the mediating effect of anxiety on this relationship.

Design/methodology/approach

A theoretical model incorporating the direct and indirect effects of knowledge integration and anxiety on decision-making is proposed and tested through partial least squares structural equation modeling with survey data from 223 parents.

Findings

Knowledge integration negatively affects anxiety. Knowledge integration has a direct positive effect on rational decision-making and an indirect negative effect on experiential decision-making.

Practical implications

These insights into the key role of knowledge integration in parental vaccine decision-making under information heterogeneity and polarization provide support for practical strategies to encourage knowledge integration and alleviate anxiety in online communities.

Originality/value

This study underscores the importance of knowledge integration in vaccine decision-making under information heterogeneity and polarization and reveals distinct mechanisms underlying the effects of knowledge integration on decision-making dominated by rational and experiential modes. The findings also provide insights into the information processing mechanisms underlying the knowledge integration of subjects with insufficient prior knowledge in the non-organizational context.

You don't have to tell a story! A registered report testing the effectiveness of narrative versus non-narrative misinformation corrections

Misinformation often has an ongoing effect on people's memory and inferential reasoning even after clear corrections are provided; this is known as the continued influence effect. In pursuit of more effective corrections, one factor that has not yet been investigated systematically is the narrative versus non-narrative format of the correction. Some scholars have suggested that a narrative format facilitates comprehension and retention of complex information and may serve to overcome resistance to worldview-dissonant corrections. It is, therefore, a possibility that misinformation corrections are more effective if they are presented in a narrative format versus a non-narrative format. The present study tests this possibility. We designed corrections that are either narrative or non-narrative, while minimizing differences in informativeness. We compared narrative and non-narrative corrections in three preregistered experiments (total N = 2279). Experiment 1 targeted misinformation contained in fictional event reports; Experiment 2 used false claims commonly encountered in the real world; Experiment 3 used real-world false claims that are controversial, in order to test the notion that a narrative format may facilitate corrective updating primarily when it serves to reduce resistance to correction. In all experiments, we also manipulated test delay (immediate vs. 2 days), as any potential benefit of the narrative format may only arise in the short term (if the story format aids primarily with initial comprehension and updating of the relevant mental model) or after a delay (if the story format aids primarily with later correction retrieval). In all three experiments, it was found that narrative corrections are no more effective than non-narrative corrections. Therefore, while stories and anecdotes can be powerful, there is no fundamental benefit of using a narrative format when debunking misinformation.

Rhetorical Appeals and Tactics in New York Times Comments About Vaccines: Qualitative Analysis

Background

Improving persuasion in response to vaccine skepticism is a long-standing problem. Elective nonvaccination emerging from skepticism about vaccine safety and efficacy jeopardizes herd immunity, exposing those who are most vulnerable to the risk of serious diseases.

Objective

This article analyzes vaccine sentiments in the New York Times as a way of improving understanding of why existing persuasive approaches may be ineffective and offers insight into how existing methods might be improved. We categorize pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine arguments, offering an in-depth analysis of pro-vaccine appeals and tactics in particular to enhance current understanding of arguments that support vaccines.

Methods

Qualitative thematic analyses were used to analyze themes in rhetorical appeals across 808 vaccine-specific comments. Pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine comments were categorized to provide a broad analysis of the overall context of vaccine comments across viewpoints, with in-depth rhetorical analysis of pro-vaccine comments to address current gaps in understanding of pro-vaccine arguments in particular.

Results

Appeals across 808 anti-vaccine and pro-vaccine comments were similar, though these appeals diverged in tactics and conclusions. Anti-vaccine arguments were more heterogeneous, deploying a wide range of arguments against vaccines. Additional analysis of pro-vaccine comments reveals that these comments use rhetorical strategies that could be counterproductive to producing persuasion. Pro-vaccine comments more frequently used tactics such as ad hominem arguments levied at those who refuse vaccines or used appeals to science to correct beliefs in vaccine skepticism, both of which can be ineffective when attempting to persuade a skeptical audience.

Conclusions

Further study of pro-vaccine argumentation appeals and tactics could illuminate how persuasiveness could be improved in online forums.