Does the Message Frame Promote People's Willingness to Vaccinate when they Worry about Side Effects from the COVID-19 Vaccine? Evidence from an Online Survey Experiment in China

Message Effectiveness of Fear Appeals in Vaccination Communication Campaigns: A Systematic Review

This systematic review of 54 cross-disciplinary peer-reviewed causal empirical studies helps public health officials, researchers, and healthcare professionals better comprehend the effects of fear appeals in vaccine promotional campaigns on message processing, persuasion, vaccination attitudes, and vaccination intentions. This review documents inconsistent findings across studies, which it attempts to clarify by considering differences in research designs, sample populations, and outcomes measured. In general, we find that fear appeals increase risk perceptions, message involvement, and vaccination attitudes. However, fear appeals have less influence on vaccination intentions, especially among female and general adult populations or populations from the U.S. and other Western cultures. On the other hand, the effect of fear appeals on vaccination intentions is stronger among student populations and those from China (People's Republic of China and Hong Kong) and other non-Western cultures. Also, fear appeals are less persuasive when promoting COVID-19 vaccines and boosters than they are for other vaccines (e.g., HPV, influenza, MMR). Future research should compare fear appeal effectiveness in messages across vaccines or when combined with other executional elements, such as the endorser or type of evidence provided. Finally, future studies should explore other methodological approaches and measure underexplored message outcomes, such as vaccine uptake behavior, in more naturalistic settings.

Communication Strategies to Promote COVID-19 Vaccination Intention: How Effective are Source, Appeal, Framing, and Evidence Type Approaches?

This systematic review analyzed the effectiveness of key persuasive strategies - source, appeal, framing, and evidence (SAFE) - on COVID-19 vaccination intention. Quantitative studies were searched in Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed following the PRISMA guidelines. From the 61 studies that met inclusion criteria, source and framing are the most commonly applied SAFE strategies. However, source characteristics are a more consistent influence on vaccine intentions than message framing strategies, with expert sources and general practitioners emerging as the key sources contributing to greater vaccine intentions. In addition, a range of mediators and moderators influence the process through which SAFE message strategies impact vaccine intentions. Framing effects, in particular, are moderated by political identity, source characteristics, and vaccine perceptions. Tests of mediating processes highlight how health behavior judgments (e.g. perceived vaccine benefits, risks, trust in vaccination, perceived severity) and message response/perceptions (e.g. counterarguing, perceived similarity/empathy) operate as key intervening factors between SAFE message strategies and vaccine intentions. Overall, when practitioners apply various structural approaches (narrative elements, fear appeals, framing cues) to vaccine promotion campaigns, they should be cognizant of who is providing that appeal. Targeted populations may benefit most from different structural elements if they are integrated with sources that resonate with the audience.

Developing the theoretical model of Chinese physical education teachers' health communication competence: based on grounded theory

Background

Physical education teachers' health communication competence is a key factor in health promotion. Although health communication is a multidisciplinary field, medical practitioners are the primary focus of health communication research, whereas physical education teachers are marginalized. Therefore, this study proposes a theoretical model of health communication competence for physical education teachers.

Methods

This qualitative research utilized interviews as the primary data collection method. Purposeful sampling was employed to select participants, including university teachers, primary and secondary school teachers, and health education professionals from diverse regions of China. A total of 31 participants were interviewed through two focus groups (N = 15) and individual semi-structured interviews (N = 16). Grounded theory was used to analyze and code the collected interview materials.

Results

The health communication competence of physical education teachers consisted of three main categories, 10 subcategories, 30 concepts, and 240 statement labels. The three main categories were as follows: (i) foundations of health communication knowledge and skills (this category encompassed three subcategories, namely sport and health knowledge reserve, health beliefs, and health behaviors); (ii) health communication perception competence (this category included two subcategories, namely health risk and crisis perception competence and communication audience perception competence); and (iii) practical competence of health communication (this category consisted of five subcategories, namely language expression competence, organizational and design competence, utilization of new media tools competence, communication content selection and processing competence, and professional skills).

Conclusion

The theoretical model of health communication competence in this study provides a foundation for the involvement of physical education teachers in health communication work. It can serve as a reference for the development of both pre-service health education courses and in-service training systems for physical education teachers. Future research can expand the sample size and geographic coverage to further validate the applicability of the findings. Additionally, investigating the factors influencing the formation of the identified competencies is recommended.

How Message Frames Promote People’s Willingness to Get Vaccinated? The Mediation Role of Perceived Net Benefits

Objectives: This study aims to evaluate the association among framed messages (egoism-, altruism-, and loss-framed information), perceived net benefits (PNB), and willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine.

Methods: A between-subject survey experiment was designed to assess the above association. A total of 1,316 individuals were included in this study. The participants were randomly assigned to one control group (receiving non-framed information) and three experimental groups (receiving egoism-, altruism-, and loss-framed information). The participants then reported their vaccination willingness and perceived effectiveness and side effects of vaccination. PNB was determined by subtracting the perceived side effects from perceived effectiveness.

Results: Compared with the control group, participants in the experimental groups exhibited stronger vaccination willingness. Higher PNB levels were associated with enhanced vaccination willingness. However, only loss-framed messages indirectly affected vaccination willingness through PNB.

Conclusion: PNB can mediate the impact of message framing on vaccination willingness. However, the mediation effect of PNB was only found in the relationship between loss-framed messages and vaccination willingness.

Using Health Behavior Theory to Address COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: A Scoping Review of Communication and Messaging Interventions

Vaccine hesitancy has been among the most vexing challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, ultimately leading to maladaptive health behaviors such as vaccine delay and refusal. A variety of approaches have been employed to address this problem, including communication and messaging interventions targeting the underlying determinants of vaccine hesitancy. However, there exists no published evidence synthesis examining how such interventions are using health behavior theory to address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. The purpose of this study was to conduct a scoping review of health communication and messaging interventions aimed at addressing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, and to systematically evaluate the use of health behavior theory in the design of these interventions. The review followed a five-step iterative framework proposed by Levac and colleagues. Comprehensive searches using an exhaustive list of keyword combinations were used across three online databases to identify articles to screen for inclusion. A structured, validated coding scheme was then applied to assess the use of health behavior theory. Additional study data were extracted using a separate structured form. A total of 36 articles published between January 2020 and February 2022 met inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Ten studies (27.7%) did not mention or use health behavior theory at all. Most studies (n = 26) at least mentioned theory or theory-relevant constructs, with 26 different theories and 52 different theoretical constructs represented in the sample. Although theory and theoretical determinants of vaccination behavior were often mentioned, few studies used theory to specify and target causal pathways of behavior change, and only one study targeted misinformation as a determinant of vaccine hesitancy. The findings from this review provide critical insight into the state of theory-based intervention design and point to significant gaps in the literature to prioritize in future research.