Impact of disease risk on the narrative bias in vaccination risk perceptions

Digital Gamification Tools to Enhance Vaccine Uptake: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Gamification has been used successfully to promote various desired health behaviors. Previous studies have used gamification to achieve desired health behaviors or facilitate their learning about health.

OBJECTIVE

In this scoping review, we aimed to describe digital gamified tools that have been implemented or evaluated across various populations to encourage vaccination, as well as any reported effects of identified tools.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, the Web of Science Core Collection, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Academic Search Premier, PsycInfo, Global Health, and ERIC for peer-reviewed papers describing digital gamified tools with or without evaluations. We also conducted web searches with Google to identify digital gamified tools lacking associated publications. We consulted 12 experts in the field of gamification and health behavior to identify any papers or tools we might have missed. We extracted data about the target population of the tools, the interventions themselves (eg, type of digital gamified tool platform, type of disease/vaccine, type and design of study), and any effects of evaluated tools, and we synthesized data narratively.

RESULTS

Of 1402 records, we included 28 (2%) peer-reviewed papers and 10 digital gamified tools lacking associated publications. The experts added 1 digital gamified tool that met the inclusion criteria. Our final data set therefore included 28 peer-reviewed papers and 11 digital gamified tools. Of the 28 peer-reviewed papers, 7 (25%) explained the development of the tool, 16 (57%) described evaluation, and 2 (7%) reported both development and evaluation of the tool. The 28 peer-reviewed papers reported on 25 different tools. Of these 25 digital gamified tools, 11 (44%) were web-based tools, 8 (32%) mobile (native mobile or mobile-enabled web) apps, and 6 (24%) virtual reality tools. Overall, tools that were evaluated showed increases in knowledge and intentions to receive vaccines, mixed effects on attitudes, and positive effects on beliefs. We did not observe discernible advantages of one type of digital gamified tool (web based, mobile, virtual reality) over the others. However, a few studies were randomized controlled trials, and publication bias may have led to such positive effects having a higher likelihood of appearing in the peer-reviewed literature.

CONCLUSIONS

Digital gamified tools appear to have potential for improving vaccine uptake by fostering positive beliefs and increasing vaccine-related knowledge and intentions. Encouraging comparative studies of different features or different types of digital gamified tools could advance the field by identifying features or types of tools that yield more positive effects across populations and contexts. Further work in this area should seek to inform the implementation of gamification for vaccine acceptance and promote effective health communication, thus yielding meaningful health and social impacts.

Infographics on risks associated with COVID-19 and the willingness to get the AstraZeneca vaccine: two randomized online experiments

BACKGROUND

Germans hesitated to get vaccinated with AstraZeneca in the COVID-19 pandemic after reports of blood clots.

METHODS

In two preregistered online experiments with stratified randomization (Study 1 N = 824, Study 2: N = 1,056), we tested whether providing evidence-based benefit-risk information reduces the perceived risk of the AstraZeneca vaccine and the perceived probability of blood clots due to the AstraZeneca vaccine and increases the vaccination intention. In Study 1, participants saw no infographic (control) or one of two infographics (low vs. high exposure risk varied by the underlying incidence rates). Study 2 additionally varied the infographic design displaying the risk information (presented as table, circle icons, or manikin-like icons).

RESULTS

The infographic decreased the risk perception of the vaccine compared to no infographic (Study 1: Cohens d = 0.31, 95% CI [0.14, 0.48]; Study 2: Cohens d = 0.34, 95% CI [0.06, 0.62]), but it did not influence the perceived probability of blood clots due to the AstraZeneca vaccine (Study 2: Cohens d = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.33]). Also, the infographic design did not affect the perceived probability of blood clots (Study 2). The vaccination intention was not affected by viewing the infographic (Study 1: Cohens d = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.21]; Study 2: Cohens d = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.32]) nor the presented infection rate (Study 1: Cohens d = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.24], Study 2: Cohens d = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.15]) but by risk perceptions, sociodemographic characteristics, confidence in the AstraZeneca vaccine, and preference for alternative vaccines.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence-based benefit-risk information helped putting the risk of vaccinations into perspective. Nevertheless, objective risk information alone did not affect vaccination intention that was low due to the preexisting lacking vaccine confidence.

Predictors of Intention to Vaccinate or Continue to Vaccinate Children Against SARS-CoV-2 During the Fifth Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic in the USA

The Centre for Disease Control recommends vaccination of children against SARS-CoV-2 to reduce the severity of COVID-19 disease and reduce the likelihood of associated complications. Vaccination of children requires the consent of parents or guardians, and levels of consent may ebb and flow over the course of the pandemic. This exploratory study examines predictors of parental intentions to vaccinate their children and the speed with which they would have them vaccinated during the fifth wave of the pandemic when vaccines were just being approved for use in children using a convenience sample of 641 parents reporting on 962 children. Multi-level regression analyses demonstrated regional differences in likelihood, with those in the Northeast reporting higher likelihood than those in the West. Parents with a conservative belief system were less likely to want to have their children vaccinated. Parents were more likely to have their child vaccinated if the child had COVID-19-related health risks, their child had a more complete vaccination history, and COVID-19 was perceived to be a greater threat to oneself and one's family. Faster intended vaccination speed was associated with regional urbanicity, liberal belief systems, more complete vaccination histories, and parental COVID-19 vaccination history. Higher levels of parental anxiety and lower levels of perceived vaccine danger were associated with increased speed. The severity of the COVID-19 pandemic within one's county was marginally related to speed, but not likelihood. These results underscore the importance of regular assessment of parental intentions across the pandemic, for practitioners to probe parental anxiety levels when discussing vaccination, to explicitly address risk/benefit analyses when communicating with parents, and to target previously routine unvaccinated parents and those in more rural areas to increase vaccine uptake. Comparisons are made with Galanis et al.'s (2022) recent meta-analysis on the topic.

Exploring parents' views of the use of narratives to promote childhood vaccination online

BACKGROUND

Negative information about vaccines that spreads online may contribute to parents' vaccine hesitancy or refusal. Studies have shown that false claims about vaccines that use emotive personal narratives are more likely to be shared and engaged with on social media than factual evidence-based public health messages. The aim of this study was to explore parents' views regarding the use of positive narratives to promote childhood vaccination.

METHODS

We identified three ∼4-minute video narratives from social media that counter frequent parental concerns about childhood vaccination: parents and informed decision-making (online misinformation about vaccines); a paediatrician's clinical experience with vaccine-preventable diseases (prevention of still existing diseases); and a mother's experience with vaccine-preventable disease (risks of the disease). Focus group discussions were held with parents of children aged 0 to 5 years to assess their views on these three narratives and their general opinion on the use of narratives as a vaccine promotion intervention.

RESULTS

Four focus groups discussions were virtually held with 15 parents in December 2021. In general, parents trusted both health care provider's and parent's narratives, but participants identified more with stories having a parent as the main character. Both narratives featuring personal stories with vaccine-preventable diseases were preferred by parents, while the story about informed decision-making was perceived as less influential. Parents expressed the need for reliable and nuanced information about vaccines and diseases and felt that a short video format featuring a story was an efficient vaccine promotion intervention. However, many mentioned that they generally are not watching such videos while navigating the Web.

CONCLUSION

While vaccine-critical stories are widely shared online, evidence on how best public health could counter these messages remains scarce. The use of narratives to promote vaccination was well-perceived by parents. Future studies are needed to assess reach and impact of such an intervention.

Exploring content of misinformation about HPV vaccine on twitter

Although social media can be a source of guidance about HPV vaccination for parents, the information may not always be complete or accurate. We conducted a retrospective content analysis to identify content and frequencies of occurrence of disinformation and misinformation about HPV vaccine posted on Twitter between December 15, 2019, through March 31, 2020, among 3876 unique, English language #HPV Tweets, excluding retweets. We found that 24% of Tweets contained disinformation or misinformation, and the remaining 76% contained support/education. The most prevalent categories of disinformation/misinformation were (1) adverse health effects (59%), (2) mandatory vaccination (19%), and (3) inefficacy of the vaccine (14%). Among the adverse health effects Tweets, non-specific harm/injury (51%) and death (23%) were most frequent. Disinformation/misinformation Tweets vs. supportive Tweets had 5.44 (95% CI 5.33-5.56) times the incidence rate of retweet. In conclusion, almost one-quarter of #HPV Tweets contained disinformation or misinformation about the HPV vaccine and these tweets received higher audience engagement including likes and retweets. Implications for vaccine hesitancy are discussed.

Genetic Risk Factors for Neurological Disorders in Children with Adverse Events Following Immunization: A Descriptive Study of a Polish Case Series

Studies conducted on large populations show a lack of connection between vaccination and serious neurological symptoms. However, there are isolated cases that indicate such a relationship. These reports on adverse effects following immunization (AEFI) reduce social confidence in vaccination; however, their background may be rare genetic defects. The aim of the presented study was to examine if neurological AEFI in children may be associated with variants in genes related to neurodevelopment. To identify such possible associations, a descriptive study of the Polish case series was conducted. We performed next-generation sequencing in patients who, up to 4 weeks of injection of any vaccine, manifested neurological AEFI. We included 23 previously normally developing children with first seizures that occurred after vaccination. We identified pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in genes engaged in neurodevelopment in nine patients and variants of uncertain significance in another nine patients. The mutated genes belonged to the group of genes related to epilepsy syndromes/epileptic encephalopathy. We showed that AEFI might have a genetic background. We hypothesized that in some AEFI patients, the vaccine might only trigger neurological symptoms that would have been manifested anyway as a result of a pathogenic variant in a gene engaged in neurodevelopment.

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.

"I don't think there's a point for me to discuss it with my patients": exploring health care providers' views and behaviours regarding COVID-19 vaccination

BACKGROUND

Health care providers' knowledge and attitudes about vaccines are important determinants of their own vaccine uptake, their intention to recommend vaccines, and their patients' vaccine uptake. This qualitative study' objective was to better understand health care providers' vaccination decisions, their views on barriers to COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and proposed solutions, their opinions on vaccine policies, and their perceived role in discussing COVID-19 vaccination with patients.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews on perceptions of COVID-19 vaccines were conducted with Canadian health care providers (N = 14) in spring 2021. A qualitative thematic analysis using NVivo was conducted.

RESULTS

Participants had positive attitudes toward vaccination and were vaccinated against COVID-19 or intended to do so once eligible (two delayed their first dose). Only two were actively promoting COVID-19 vaccination to their patients; others either avoided discussing the topic or only provided answers when asked questions. Participants' proposed solutions to enhance COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the public were in relation to access to vaccination services, information in multiple languages, and community outreach. Most participants were in favor of mandatory vaccination policies and had mixed views on the potential impact of the Canadian vaccine-injury support program.

CONCLUSIONS

While health care providers are recognized as a key source of information regarding vaccines, participants in our study did not consider it their role to provide advice on COVID-19 vaccination. This is a missed opportunity that could be avoided by ensuring health care providers have the tools and training to feel confident in engaging in vaccine discussions with their patients.

Biased Social Comparison in the Moment of Crisis

Abstract. The better-than-average effect (BTAE) is a mechanism where people perceive oneself as better than others. The BTAE could be one of the phenomena explaining why people follow – in the moment of a global health crisis – guidelines (“I am superior to others, and I [will]) take extra precautions, e.g., a vaccine shot”). In this paper, we investigate the BTAE with 3,066 respondents. In Study 1, in all countries, across two measurements in time, the BTAE was present: Participants rated their involvement in self-protection as greater in comparison to others. Study 2 replicated this effect, proving its robustness. Participants estimated their willingness to vaccinate as higher than others. The BTAE was a significant predictor of willingness to vaccinate.

Understanding the influence of online information, misinformation, disinformation and reinformation on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance: Protocol for a multicomponent study

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has generated an explosion in the amount of information shared on the internet, including false and misleading information on SARS-CoV-2 and recommended protective behaviors. Prior to the pandemic, web-based misinformation and disinformation were already identified as having an impact on people’s decision to refuse or delay recommended vaccination for themselves or their children.

Objective

The overall aims of our study are to better understand the influence of web-based misinformation and disinformation on COVID-19 vaccine decisions and investigate potential solutions to reduce the impact of web-based misinformation and disinformation about vaccines.

Methods

Based on different research approaches, the study will involve (1) the use of artificial intelligence techniques, (2) a web-based survey, (3) interviews, and (4) a scoping review and an environmental scan of the literature.

Results

As of September 1, 2022, data collection has been completed for all objectives. The analysis is being conducted, and results should be disseminated in the upcoming months.

Conclusions

The findings from this study will help with understanding the underlying determinants of vaccine hesitancy among Canadian individuals and identifying effective, tailored interventions to improve vaccine acceptance among them.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/41012

Vaccine discourse during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic: Topical structure and source patterns informing efforts to combat vaccine hesitancy

Background

Understanding public discourse about a COVID-19 vaccine in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic may provide key insights concerning vaccine hesitancy. However, few studies have investigated the communicative patterns in which Twitter users participate discursively in vaccine discussions.

Objectives

This study aims to investigate 1) the major topics that emerged from public conversation on Twitter concerning vaccines for COVID-19, 2) the topics that were emphasized in tweets with either positive or negative sentiment toward a COVID-19 vaccine, and 3) the type of online accounts in which tweets with either positive or negative sentiment were more likely to circulate.

Methods

We randomly extracted a total of 349,979 COVID-19 vaccine-related tweets from the initial period of the pandemic. Out of 64,216 unique tweets, a total of 23,133 (36.03%) tweets were classified as positive and 14,051 (21.88%) as negative toward a COVID-19 vaccine. We conducted Structural Topic Modeling and Network Analysis to reveal the distinct topical structure and connection patterns that characterize positive and negative discourse toward a COVID-19 vaccine.

Results

Our STM analysis revealed the most prominent topic emerged on Twitter of a COVID-19 vaccine was “other infectious diseases”, followed by “vaccine safety concerns”, and “conspiracy theory.” While the positive discourse demonstrated a broad range of topics such as “vaccine development”, “vaccine effectiveness”, and “safety test”, negative discourse was more narrowly focused on topics such as “conspiracy theory” and “safety concerns.” Beyond topical differences, positive discourse was more likely to interact with verified sources such as scientists/medical sources and the media/journalists, whereas negative discourse tended to interact with politicians and online influencers.

Conclusions

Positive and negative discourse was not only structured around distinct topics but also circulated within different networks. Public health communicators need to address specific topics of public concern in varying information hubs based on audience segmentation, potentially increasing COVID-19 vaccine uptake.

Facts Tell, Stories Sell? Assessing the Availability Heuristic and Resistance as Cognitive Mechanisms Underlying the Persuasive Effects of Vaccination Narratives

Online vaccine-critical sentiments are often expressed in appealing personal narratives, whereas vaccine-supporting information is often presented in a non-narrative, expository mode describing scientific facts. In two experiments, we empirically test whether and how these different formats impact the way in which readers process and retrieve information about childhood vaccination, and how this may impact their perceptions regarding vaccination. We assess two psychological mechanisms that are hypothesized to underlie the persuasive nature of vaccination narratives: the availability heuristic (experiment 1, N = 418) and cognitive resistance (experiment 2, N = 403). The results of experiment 1 showed no empirical evidence for the availability heuristic, but exploratory analyses did indicate that an anti-vaccination narrative (vs. expository) might reduce cognitive resistance, decrease vaccination attitudes and reduce attitude certainty in a generally pro-vaccination sample, especially for those who were more vaccine hesitant. Preregistered experiment 2 formally tested this and showed that not narrative format, but prior vaccine hesitancy predicts cognitive resistance and post-reading attitudes. Hesitant participants showed less resistance toward an anti-vaccine text than vaccine-supporting participants, as well as less positive post-reading attitudes and attitude certainty. These findings demonstrate belief consistency effects rather than narrative persuasion, which has implications for scientific research as well as public health policy.

Psychological predictors of vaccination intentions among U.S. undergraduates and online panel workers during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVE

Availability of safe and effective vaccines against COVID-19 is critical for controlling the pandemic, but herd immunity can only be achieved with high vaccination coverage. The present research examined psychological factors associated with intentions to receive COVID-19 vaccination and whether reluctance towards novel pandemic vaccines are similar to vaccine hesitancy captured by a hypothetical measure used in previous research.

METHOD

Study 1 was administered to undergraduate students when COVID-19 was spreading exponentially (February-April 2020). Study 2 was conducted with online panel workers toward the end of the first U.S. wave (July 2020) as a pre-registered replication and extension of Study 1. In both studies, participants (total N = 1,022) rated their willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccination and to vaccinate a hypothetical child for a fictitious disease, and then responded to various psychological measures.

RESULTS

In both studies, vaccination intentions were positively associated with past flu vaccine uptake, self-reported vaccine knowledge, vaccine confidence, and sense of collective responsibility. Complacency (not perceiving disease as high-risk), anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs, perceived vaccine danger, and mistrust in science/scientists were negative correlates of vaccination intentions. Constraints (psychological barriers), calculation (extensive information-searching), analytical thinking, perceived disease vulnerability, self-other overlap, and conservatism were weakly associated with vaccination intentions but not consistently across both studies or vaccine types. Additionally, similar factors were associated with both real and hypothetical vaccination intentions, suggesting that conclusions from pre-COVID vaccine hesitancy research mostly generalize to the current pandemic situation.

CONCLUSION

Encouraging flu vaccine uptake, enhancing confidence in a novel vaccine, and fostering a sense of collective responsibility are particularly important as they uniquely predict COVID-19 vaccination intentions. By including both actual pandemic-related hesitancy measures and hypothetical hesitancy measures from past research in the same study, this work provides key context for the generalizability of earlier non-pandemic research.

Vaccine alliance building blocks: a conjoint experiment on popular support for international COVID-19 cooperation formats

The design principles of institutions that visibly and significantly affect citizens' lives are likely to be politically salient. Popular support for these principles is in turn crucial for institutional viability and effectiveness. Transboundary pandemics are a case in point. Understanding citizens' preferences regarding the design of international alliances set up to mass-produce and distribute vaccines is likely to determine citizens' subsequent cooperation with vaccination campaigns. This study explores Germans' preferences for international COVID-19 vaccine alliance design principles. We conducted a conjoint experiment at a recurring cognitive moment in many pandemics' cycles, between the initial outbreak and a more devastating but still-unknown second wave, when infection rates were very low, yet no policy solutions had been developed. We analyzed preferences regarding four building blocks: (1) alliance composition (size; EU-centrism), (2) alliance distribution rules (joining cost; vaccine allocation), (3) vaccine nationalism (cost per German household; coverage in Germany) and (4) vaccine producer confidence (origin; type). Distribution rules, political ideology and personal perceptions of pandemic threat matter little. But a larger alliance size and dominant EU-country composition increase alliance support. And vaccine nationalism is key: support increases with both lower costs and larger coverage for own-nation citizens. Moreover, support goes down for Chinese and American producers and increases for Swiss and especially own-nation producers. In sum, a realist and technocratic outlook is warranted at the cognitive stage in pandemic cycles when no solutions have been found, yet the worst already seems to be over, as national self-interest reigns supreme in popular attitudes.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11077-021-09435-1.

Demographic, psychological, and experiential correlates of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination intentions in a sample of Canadian families

The COVID-19 pandemic has been ongoing for close to a year, with second waves occurring presently and many viewing vaccine uptake as the most likely way to curb successive waves and promote herd immunity. Reaching herd immunity status likely necessitates that children, as well as their parents, receive a vaccine targeting SARS-CoV-2. In this exploratory study, we investigated the demographic, experiential, and psychological factors associated with the anticipated likelihood and speed of having children receive a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in a sample of 455 Canadian families (858 children; parents' mean age = 38.2 ± 6.82 years). Using linear mixed-effects and proportional odds logistic regression models, we demonstrated that older parental age, living in the Prairies (relative to Central Canada), more complete child vaccination history, and a greater tendency to prioritise the risks of the disease relative to the risks of side effects (i.e. lower omission bias) were associated with higher likelihoods of intention to vaccinate participants' children, with trend-level associations with lower perceived danger of the vaccine and higher psychological avoidance of the pandemic. Faster speed of intended vaccination was predicted by a similar constellation of variables with an additional predictor of a child in the family having a COVID-19 related health risk being associated with slower intended speed. Results are discussed concerning public health knowledge mobilisation and the unique Canadian health landscape.

Vaccine Hesitancy, Acceptance, and Anti-Vaccination: Trends and Future Prospects for Public Health

An often-stated public health comment is that "vaccination is a victim of its own success." While the scientific and medical consensus on the benefits of vaccination is clear and unambiguous, an increasing number of people are perceiving vaccines as unsafe and unnecessary. The World Health Organization identified "the reluctance or refusal to vaccinate despite availability of vaccines" as one of the 10 threats to global health in 2019. The negative influence of anti-vaccination movements is often named as a cause of increasing vaccine resistance in the public. In this review, we give an overview of the current literature on the topic, beginning by agreeing on terminology and concepts before looking at potential causes, consequences, and impacts of resistance to vaccination.

Understanding the messages and motivation of vaccine hesitant or refusing social media influencers

BACKGROUND

While anti-vaccine messages on social media have been studied for content, reach, and effectiveness, less is known about those who create and promote the messages. Online influencers, or 'everyday people who are influential within their online social networks', are viewed as trusted voices who are often making similar life decisions as their followers. Therefore, their experiences with and perspectives on health issues can be persuasive.

METHODS

We collaborated with a formal network of online influencers to interview, using a semi-structured interview guide, vaccine hesitant influencer mothers about their views on vaccination; their process for developing health-related social media content; their motivation to promote anti-vaccine messages; and their opinions on current vaccination messaging. Prescreening ensured a diverse sample by race/ethnicity, age, education, number of children, and geographic residence. Interviews occurred by telephone, were audio recorded, and transcribed. Themes were generated independently by two coders using a deductive coding approach.

RESULTS

We interviewed 15 online influencer mothers from across the U.S. (average age 39 years old; all married; 13 Caucasian, 1 African American, 1 Hispanic). In some capacity, 5 of the 15 wrote about vaccination on their blog. Those who chose not to post anti-vaccine content did so for fear of alienating followers or having their platform be the site of combative discourse among readers. When researching their social media posts, the influencers did not trust mainstream sources of health information and relied on alternative sources and search engines.

IMPLICATIONS

This exploratory study interviewed influential mothers who have the ability to spread anti-vaccine messages on social media. While most do not contribute to the anti-vaccine sentiment, understanding the motivation and practices of those that do assists the public health community in better understanding the online vaccination communication environment, leading to more effective messages to counterbalance anti-vaccine content on social media.

Fact vs Fallacy: The Anti-Vaccine Discussion Reloaded

In the light of the COVID-19 pandemic, anti-vaccine sentiments have been on the rise, with a recent seminal study on the development of anti-vaccine views in social media even making its way into Nature Communications. Yet, with the current scientific consensus being in overwhelming agreement over the safety and efficacy of vaccines, many scientists lose their grasp on the fears, concerns, and arguments that the opposition may hold. This paper discusses and evaluates vaccine-hesitant individuals on a socioeconomic, historical, and philosophical landscape. It also provides an analysis of common argumentative patterns and the psychological impact that these arguments may have on undecided individuals. The discussion also explores why anti-vaccine sentiments are on the rise, and how members of the scientific and medical community require a more structured approach to communicating key arguments. This is particularly important if vaccination rates and herd immunity are to be sustained. No longer is it sufficient to win arguments based on a factual and scientific basis, but rather scientists and medical practitioners have to focus on conveying confidence and reassurance on both an informative and emotional level to those with doubts and fears.

Optimizing communication material to address vaccine hesitancy

Vaccine hesitancy (the reluctance to accept recommended vaccines) is a complex issue that poses risk communication challenges for public health authorities and clinicians. Studies have shown that providing too much evidence on vaccine safety and efficacy to those who are vaccine-hesitant has done little to stem the growth of hesitancy-related beliefs and fears. The objective of this paper is to describe good practices in developing communication materials to address vaccine hesitancy. An inventory of vaccination communication materials in Canada was assessed according to the Council of Canadian Academies Expert Panel on Health Product Risk Communication Evaluation (2015). Many of the current communication products could be improved to better align with evidence-based risk communication best practices. Five best practices were identified. First, identify target audience and establish trust. Second, provide both the risks and benefits of vaccination, as most people are looking for balanced information. Third, give the facts before addressing the myths. Fourth, use visual aids. Fifth, test communication material prior to launch. Applying these best practices to current or future communication products will help vaccine providers (including physicians, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, public health professionals) to develop communication materials that are sensitive to the complex ways that people process and value information and thus more likely to optimize vaccine uptake in their communities.