Testing Strategies to Increase Source Credibility through Strategic Message Design in the Context of Vaccination and Vaccine Hesitancy

Re-Routing Persuasion: How Conversion Messages Boost Attitudes and Reduce Resistance Among Holdouts Unvaccinated for COVID-19

This study examined the persuasive effects of two-sided refutational conversion messages compared to one-sided advocacy messages in increasing pro-COVID-19 vaccination attitudes and reducing resistance to getting vaccinated among U.S. adults who self-reported as unvaccinated. Results showed that main effects of conversion messages led to significantly higher attitudes but failed to directly reduce resistance toward vaccination. Predicted mediation effects between conversion messages and the dependent variables were found for homophily but were not supported for argument strength. Significant group differences were detected between participants who self-reported as high or low in vaccine hesitancy, for structural equation models that significantly and indirectly led to decreased resistance. Findings show the potential for two-sided conversion messages to be used by public health message designers to affect pro-health outcomes. Implications and limitations of these results and future directions are discussed.

Effects of Message Framing and Narrative Format on Promoting Persuasive Conversations with Others About the Flu Vaccine

This study examines the effects of message framing (loss vs. gain) and format (narrative vs. expository) on intentions to discuss flu vaccination with a close social referent. We test the effects of video messages using a two-wave web-based randomized experiment among adults in Israel (baseline: N = 429, one-month follow-up: N = 241). Exposure to narrative messages was positively associated with intentions to discuss flu vaccination. Exposure to loss-framed messages was positively associated with increased likelihood of discussing vaccination with the referent at follow-up. Effects of message framing and format were moderated by concern for the referent's health. Findings support the use of persuasive messages to motivate interpersonal conversation to promote vaccination. Results contribute to theory on risk-framing by showing that audiences may evaluate loss-framed messages according to their risk perceptions, when greater concern for health risks motivate action, not only for one's own health but for another person's health.

Influences on COVID-19 vaccine Decision-Making: A Qualitative Study With Urban Indigenous and Rural Adults

Despite the safety and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine, public hesitancy about receiving vaccination remains strong among disproportionately affected populations in the United States. To design more locally and culturally appropriate strategies, research is needed to explore the qualitative characteristics of vaccine hesitancy in these populations. Thus, we conducted in-depth interviews with 19 Indigenous and 20 rural participants and utilized a grounded theory approach to identify factors associated with their COVID-19 vaccine decision making. Wariness regarding safety of vaccines, resignation over the quality of available health care, and a historical mistrust of government-led interventions influenced vaccine rejection for indigenous participants. Rural participants remained divided on the perceived threat and consequences of COVID-19 and the efficacy and safety of the vaccines. The influence of friends and family members impacted vaccine hesitancy, as did discussions with healthcare providers when discussions were perceived to be respectful, sensitive, and non-judgmental.

Promoting Rural-Residing Parents' Receptivity to HPV Vaccination: Targeting Messages and Mobile Clinic Implementation

Interventions are needed to increase low HPV vaccination rates within rural areas in the United States, particularly in the state of Florida, which has the seventh highest number of HPV-related cancers. Florida also ranks low compared to other states in terms of HPV vaccination. Rural-residing parents may benefit from two evidence-based strategies to increase vaccination rates: reminder messages informing and prompting vaccination appointments and mobile clinics to reduce transportation barriers. We sought to identify parental attitudes towards (1) message features that promote rural-residing parents' receptivity to HPV vaccination; (2) parents' acceptability of three reminder message modalities (text, postcard, phone); and (3) implementation factors that promote parents' acceptability of using a mobile clinic for vaccination. We recruited 28 rural-residing parents of 9- to 12-year-old children (unvaccinated for HPV) for focus group and individual interviews and thematically analyzed transcripts. Three features promoted parents' receptivity to HPV vaccination messages: source credibility, specific information coverage, and personalization (name and birthday wishes). Parents most preferred text messages and identified three factors promoting parents' mobile clinic use: convenience and feasibility, trustworthiness, and detailed information. The findings indicate rural-residing parents' acceptability of reminder messages and mobile clinics as well as the importance of trust and feasibility when implementing these evidence-based strategies for rural-residing parents.

Facebook's shared articles on HPV vaccination: analysis of persuasive strategies

BACKGROUND

The current study analyzed articles shared on Facebook between 2019 and 2021 that discuss the HPV vaccine. Results address a gap in knowledge about the persuasive strategies used in HPV vaccine discourse on Facebook.

METHODS

Using Buzzsumo.com, we collected 138 articles, shared on Facebook between 2019 and 2021, with the highest "engagement scores," or total number of reactions, comments, and shares. Using a content analysis methodology, three independent coders were trained in using the study codebook, achieved acceptable inter-rater reliability (Krippendorf's alpha = 0.811), and coded each article in Atlas.ti.

RESULTS

Seventy-two articles had a positive valence toward the HPV vaccine, 48 had a negative valence, and 18 were mixed-valence or neutral. Pro-vaccine articles presented a variety of evidence types in support of benefits of HPV vaccination. Pro-vaccine articles primarily originated from national and local news sources. Anti-vaccine articles combined presentation of evidence with persuasive arguments and strategies, such as mistrust of institutions, fear appeals, ideological appeals, presenting a high number of arguments or detail, and minimizing the severity of HPV. Three sources were responsible for producing 62.5% of all anti-vaccine articles in the dataset. Mixed-valence or neutral articles mixed cancer prevention discourse with ideological appeals about protecting parental rights, and were mostly produced by local news outlets.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study can help health communicators anticipate the types of discourses that vaccine-hesitant parents may have encountered online. Implications and suggestions for practice are discussed.

Exploration of parental consent for adolescent involvement in genital body image education research

Genital body image is a highly understudied concept but is important for sexual health and broader body image satisfaction. Effective genital body image interventions for adolescents have been developed, however, parental consent can be a barrier to adolescent participation. The aim of this study was to conduct a novel exploration of parental consent for genital body image education research and factors related to this consent. Participants were 125 parents of adolescents in Australia who completed an online questionnaire including measures of demographic characteristics, personality traits and attitudes, and likelihood of consent for an adolescent son and daughter participating in hypothetical genital body image education research. The vast majority of parents indicated that they definitely would consent to their adolescent sons' and daughters' involvement in this hypothetical research. There was no significant difference in likelihood of consent based on the gender of the adolescent. Parents having more conservative attitudes towards sex was the only factor tested that reduced the likelihood of providing consent. Overall, our results suggest parents are generally supportive of adolescent involvement in genital body image education research. This concept should be included in broader body image educational programs so adolescents gain exposure to this important but neglected topic.

"Trust Me, I'm a Doctor." How TikTok Videos from Different Sources Influence Clinical Trial Participation

This study experiments with TikTok videos to promote clinical trial participation. More specifically, it examines how short-form video sources (doctors vs. prior volunteers for clinical trials) influence perceived source credibility, self-efficacy, and behavioral intention to participate in clinical trials. Findings from this online experiment (N = 396) showed that doctor sources led to greater behavioral intention through enhancing source credibility compared to prior volunteer sources. Alternatively, prior volunteer sources increased behavioral intention via enhanced self-efficacy for participants with low trust in doctors. These findings contribute to the understanding of how short-form video sources act as heuristic cues, leading to persuasion outcomes. Overall, we recommend featuring doctors when using video-based messages to promote clinical trial participation. Also, this study emphasizes the need for health communication practitioners to consider prior volunteers as spokespersons when targeting populations with low baseline trust in doctors.

Exploring the Strategic Use of TikTok for Clinical Trial Recruitment: How audiences' Prior Short-Form Video Usage Influences Persuasive Effects

Guided by the elaboration likelihood model and framing theory, this study explores the potential of short-form video platforms (e.g. TikTok), for targeted clinical trial recruitment. An online experiment compared doctor vs. peer-led videos addressing logistical or psychological barriers to participation, mimicking common TikTok communication tactics. Results indicate that high (vs. low) TikTok users are more persuaded by recruitment messages, and they exhibit stronger intentions to participate in clinical trials. Although doctor-sourced messages generate greater credibility and a more favorable message attitude, peer-sourced messages may be more effective in increasing participation intention. Lastly, doctor-sourced videos that address logistical barriers and peer-sourced videos that discuss psychological barriers result in higher self-efficacy for clinical trial participation. This study contributes to the growing body of research on new media's role in health communication and provides insights into how to strategically utilize TikTok and other short-form video platforms for clinical trial recruitment.

Framing COVID-19 Preprint Research as Uncertain: A Mixed-Method Study of Public Reactions

During the COVID-19 pandemic, journalists were encouraged to convey uncertainty surrounding preliminary scientific evidence, including mentioning when research is unpublished or unverified by peer review. To understand how public audiences interpret this information, we conducted a mixed method study with U.S. adults. Participants read a news article about preprint COVID-19 vaccine research in early April 2021, just as the vaccine was becoming widely available to the U.S. public. We modified the article to test two ways of conveying uncertainty (hedging of scientific claims and mention of preprint status) in a 2 × 2 between-participants factorial design. To complement this, we collected open-ended data to assess participants' understanding of the concept of a scientific preprint. In all, participants who read hedged (vs. unhedged) versions of the article reported less favorable vaccine attitudes and intentions and found the scientists and news reporting less trustworthy. These effects were moderated by participants' epistemic beliefs and their preference for information about scientific uncertainty. However, there was no impact of describing the study as a preprint, and participants' qualitative responses indicated a limited understanding of the concept. We discuss implications of these findings for communicating initial scientific evidence to the public and we outline important next steps for research and theory-building.

Debunking Mental Health Misperceptions in Short-Form Social Media Videos: An Experimental Test of Scientific Credibility Cues

In recent years, short-form social media videos have emerged as an important source of health-related advice. In this study, we investigate whether experts or ordinary users in such videos are more effective in debunking the common misperception that talking about suicide should be avoided. We also explore a new trend on TikTok and other platforms, in which users attempt to back up their arguments by displaying scientific articles in the background of their videos. To test the effect of source type (expert vs. ordinary user) and scientific references (present or absent), we conducted a 2 × 2 between-subject plus control group experiment (n = 956). In each condition, participants were shown a TikTok video that was approximately 30 seconds long. Our findings show that in all four treatment groups, participants reduced their misperceptions on the topic. The expert was rated as being more authoritative on the topic compared to the ordinary user. However, the expert was also rated as being less credible compared to the ordinary user. The inclusion of a scientific reference did not make a difference. Thus, both experts and ordinary users may be similarly persuasive in a short-form video environment.

Behavioral Beliefs Predict Recommended Behaviors, Especially When Trust in Public Health Sources is Low: Evidence from a Longitudinal Study of Three COVID-19 Prevention Behaviors Among U.S. Adults

Public distrust in official sources of health information and uncertainty about novel guidelines may discourage engagement in recommended disease prevention practices. The current study tests the hypothesis that building confidence in positive behavioral outcomes may support recommendation following even in the context of low trust in recommendation sources. This set of longitudinal studies examines the main and interaction effects of trust in official sources and behavioral beliefs in their prediction of recommended COVID-19 prevention behaviors (facemask wearing, social distancing, vaccination). Repeated measurement data were collected from a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults in May/June 2020 (T1; n = 1074), July 2020 (T2; n = 889), and April/June 2021 (T3; n = 750). All five tests, using lagged linear regression, found negative interactions between trust and behavioral beliefs, as hypothesized; three were significant (T1-T2: facemask wearing B=-0.10, SE = 0.04; T1-T3: social distancing B=-0.20, SE = 0.06; T2-T3 vaccination B=-0.27, SE = 0.10) and two were consistent albeit not significant (T1-T3: social distancing B=-0.13, SE = 0.08; T1-T3: facemask wearing B=-0.11, SE = 0.06). Supporting hypotheses, trust in recommendation sources predicted behavior most among those who were less certain about behavioral outcomes and confidence in behavioral benefits predicted behavior most among those with low trust in recommendation sources. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

The doctor knows or the evidence shows: An online survey experiment testing the effects of source trust, pro-vaccine evidence, and dual-processing in expert messages recommending child COVID-19 vaccination to parents

Increasing child vaccination rates is a critical step toward mitigating the spread of COVID-19. Both distrust in expert sources and concern about the safety and efficacy of vaccines may contribute to parent vaccine hesitancy. The present study is the first to test the effectiveness of building trust and providing evidence supporting child COVID-19 vaccines in recommendation messages for parents. Based on dual-processing theories, emphasis on source trustworthiness and pro-vaccine evidence may each be particularly effective when the other is not present. It was hypothesized that these two approaches would have main and interaction effects on perceived message effectiveness and pro-vaccine beliefs. A between-subjects 2 (trust-building appeal vs. no trust-building appeal) X 2 (pro-vaccine evidence vs. no pro-vaccine evidence) online survey experiment was conducted in December 2021 and January 2022 with United States parents/guardians of children <18 years old (n = 401). As hypothesized, trust and pro-vaccine evidence each had significant simple main effects on both outcomes. Analysis of variance showed a significant negative interaction effect of trust and pro-vaccine evidence on perceived message effectiveness [F(3, 394) = 6.47; η2 = 0.02, p = 0.002; 95% CI (0.01, 0.11)], supporting the dual-processing hypothesis. The interaction effect on pro-vaccine beliefs was also negative but not significant [F(3, 394) = 2.69; η2 = 0.01; p = 0.102; 95% CI (0.00, 0.03)]. Either highlighting evidence supporting vaccines or building trust in expert sources can influence parent vaccine support. Messages which include strong evidence supporting recommended behaviors may influence recommendation acceptance even among those with lower trust in expert sources and establishing trust may reduce the need to describe available evidence.

The "Survival Pending Revolution" COVID-19 vaccination campaign: an example of critical communication theory in action

Introduction

We carried out a two-phase, qualitative evaluation of a novel public health campaign to promote COVID-19 vaccination among youth and young adults of color (YOC), called Survival Pending Revolution. The campaign, commissioned by California's Department of Public Health, was created by YOC spoken word artists, under the direction of the organization, Youth Speaks.

Methods

In phase 1, we describe the communication attributes of the campaign's nine video-poems, coded the content of the pieces, and applied thematic analysis to describe the themes conveyed. In phase 2, we carried out a comparative health communication study to assess the content's potential value. We exposed a sample of the target audience (YOC) to the content of Survival Pending Revolution and a widely viewed comparator campaign (The Conversation). Using a focus group, we solicited participants' views using a semi-structured approach. Using thematic analysis, we summarized the reactions that arose when participants reflected on the attributes of each campaign.

Results

Findings from phase 1 reveal how engaging YOC artists who embrace Youth Speaks' philosophy of harnessing "life as primary text" resulted in content that is aligned with critical communication theory, focusing on structural determinants of health, including themes of overcoming oppressive systems, health and social inequities, and medical discrimination and mistrust. Findings from phase 2 reveal that this arts-based campaign based on such critical communication theory, when compared to a more traditional campaign, promotes message salience, fosters emotional engagement, and provides a form of validation among historically oppressed groups such that they may be more open to, and potentially act on, the COVID-19 vaccination communications to which they are exposed.

Discussion

As an example of critical communication, the Survival Pending Revolution campaign encourages health-promoting behavioral decisions while calling out the structural determinants of health that shape risks of exposure and constrain free choice. Engaging uniquely gifted members of marginalized populations as creators and messengers of campaigns lead to content that is aligned with a critical communication approach, whose goal is to aid disparity populations in both resisting and navigating systems that continue to locate them on the margins of society. Our evaluation of this campaign suggests that it represents a promising formative and interventional approach to engendering trust in public health messaging and promoting health equity.

Why Parents Say No to Having Their Children Vaccinated against Measles: A Systematic Review of the Social Determinants of Parental Perceptions on MMR Vaccine Hesitancy

Ongoing outbreaks of measles threaten its elimination status in the United States. Its resurgence points to lower parental vaccine confidence and local pockets of unvaccinated and undervaccinated individuals. The geographic clustering of hesitancy to MMR indicates the presence of social drivers that shape parental perceptions and decisions on immunization. Through a qualitative systematic review of published literature (n = 115 articles; 7 databases), we determined major themes regarding parental reasons for MMR vaccine hesitancy, social context of MMR vaccine hesitancy, and trustworthy vaccine information sources. Fear of autism was the most cited reason for MMR hesitancy. The social drivers of vaccine hesitancy included primary care/healthcare, education, economy, and government/policy factors. Social factors, such as income and education, exerted a bidirectional influence, which facilitated or hindered vaccine compliance depending on how the social determinant was experienced. Fear of autism was the most cited reason for MMR hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy to MMR and other childhood vaccines clustered in middle- to high-income areas among mothers with a college-level education or higher who preferred internet/social media narratives over physician-based vaccine information. They had low parental trust, low perceived disease susceptibility, and were skeptical of vaccine safety and benefits. Combating MMR vaccine misinformation and hesitancy requires intersectoral and multifaceted approaches at various socioecological levels to address the social drivers of vaccine behavior.

When the influencer says jump! How influencer signaling affects engagement with COVID-19 misinformation

With signaling theory, credibility, and social media engagement (SME) as guiding frameworks, this study used an experiment to examine how social media influencers (SMIs) affect how people engage with COVID-19 misinformation. SMI-promoted information elicited more SME, credibility, and purchase likelihood than non-SMI promoted information. The most effective message was a post promoted by an SMI that contained detailed information about an authentic product. However, data indicated nuance regarding the effect of SMIs. The authenticity of the information as well as the amount of detail in the post played a role. Additionally, mediated effects analysis showed that the impact of SME on purchase likelihood was higher among non-SMI followers. Data suggests that using a multi-signal messaging approach is suitable regardless of promotion by an SMI. This has important implications to public health messaging and the author discusses how health agencies may effectively signal information to the public.

Framing Effects on US Adults’ Reactions to COVID-19 Public Health Messages: Moderating Role of Source Trust

Increasing politicization of health guidance and fluctuating trust in public health institutions have challenged effective coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health communication in the United States. Applying the extended parallel process model, this research reports findings from two online survey experiments conducted at different points in the pandemic regarding two advocated risk reduction behaviors. Analyses test US adults’ emotional and argument strength reactions to experimental tweets attributed to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention which vary with regards to advocated behavior (social distancing; vaccination), emotional appeal, wellbeing orientation (individual vs. collective), and content frame (health vs. economic outcomes). Trust in the CDC is treated as a potential moderator. Results of path analyses indicated that emotional appeal and content frame had little impact on emotional or cognitive responses to the social distancing tweets, though unvaccinated adults with low trust in the CDC experienced greater hope and fear responses to tweets emphasizing collective benefits of vaccination. Hope reactions in both studies predicted greater perceived response efficacy for the advocated behavior, particularly among those with low CDC trust, while message annoyance undermined efficacy among low trust participants. Particularly among adults with low trust in the CDC, fear reactions led to reduced efficacy. Perceived efficacy of vaccination predicted greater intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, controlling for prior intention. Messages which inspire hope with regards to risk reduction behaviors and include sound arguments may be more motivating than fear-appeal messages, particularly among individuals with low levels of trust in public health institutions.

What Is the State-of-the-Art in Clinical Trials on Vaccine Hesitancy 2015-2020?

BACKGROUND

Vaccine hesitancy is related to a delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccination.

AIM

to perform a systematic review of clinical trials on vaccine hesitancy (2015-2020).

METHODS

a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria (PRISMA). Five databases were screened-PubMed, Cochrane Library, DOAJ, SciELO and b-on-which comprise multiple resources.

KEYWORDS

"Vaccine hesitancy" and ("randomized controlled trial" or "clinical trial").

INCLUSION CRITERIA

trials about "vaccine hesitancy" enrolling patients and/or health professionals (2015-2020).

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

studies about other topics, repeated and qualitative studies, reviews and papers written in languages other than English, Portuguese, French or Spanish.

RESULTS

a total of 35 trials out of 90 were selected (19 PubMed, 14 Cochrane Library, 0 DOAJ, 0 SciELO and 2 b-on). Selected trials were classified into five topics: children/pediatric (n = 5); online or electronic information (n = 5); vaccination against a specific disease (n = 15) (e.g., influenza or COVID-2019); miscellaneous (n = 4); and educational strategies (n = 6).

CONCLUSION

the provision of online or electronic information (e.g., through virtual reality, social websites of experts, or apps), communication-based interventions and training of health professionals, residents or subjects seemed to improve vaccine hesitancy.

A Select Bibliography of Actions to Promote Vaccine Literacy: A Resource for Health Communication

In this bibliography, the researchers provide an introduction to the available evidence base of actions to promote vaccine literacy. The research team organized interventions to create a tool that can inform health communicators and practitioners seeking a resource focused on strategy and implementation design for actions that support vaccine literacy. This scoping bibliography is honed specifically to respond to the urgency of the current pandemic, when supporting and increasing vaccine literacy offers promise for achieving the critically needed high levels of vaccination. Over the course of the coming months and year, this bibliography will be a dynamic and "living" document hosted and maintained on vaccineliteracy.com.