The dynamics of trust and communication in COVID-19 vaccine decision making: A qualitative inquiry

COVID-19 Vaccine decision-making: trust among the transgender and disability communities in India

BACKGROUND

Historical marginalisation and ongoing trust deficits in health and government systems shape present-day vaccine perceptions among marginalised communities. This paper sought to understand the role of trust in decision-making about COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the transgender and disability communities in India.

METHODS

Using a participatory approach we interviewed 24 community representatives, identifying themselves as transgender individuals or as persons with disability, and 21 key informants such as vaccine programme managers, vaccine providers, and community advocates. We undertook an inductive thematic analysis of the data using a socio-ecological model.

RESULTS

Fear of side effects in relation to specific needs of the two communities and mistrust of systems involved in vaccination shaped four different pathways for vaccine decision-making. Mistrust of systems was influenced by past negative experiences with the health system, creating contexts in which information and misinformation are shared and interpreted. Participants negotiated their doubts about safety and mistrust of systems by interacting with different sources of influence showing patterns of decision-making that are dynamic, context-dependent, and intersectional.

CONCLUSION

These findings will help in determining the content, strategies and approaches to equitable vaccine communication for these two communities. The two communities ought to be included in vaccine trials. Vaccine information must respond to the specific needs of these two communities which could be enabled by collaboration and engagement with community members and influencers. Finally, long-term investment towards the needs of marginalised communities is vital to dismantle cycles of marginalisation and distrust and in turn improve vaccine acceptance and uptake.

Pandemic lifeworlds: A segmentation analysis of public responsiveness to official communication about Covid-19 in England

Pandemics such as Covid-19 pose tremendous public health communication challenges in promoting protective behaviours, vaccination, and educating the public about risks. Segmenting audiences based on attitudes and behaviours is a means to increase the precision and potential effectiveness of such communication. The present study reports on such an audience segmentation effort for the population of England, sponsored by the United Kingdom Health Security Agency (UKHSA) and involving a collaboration of market research and academic experts. A cross-sectional online survey was conducted between 4 and 24 January 2022 with 5525 respondents (5178 used in our analyses) in England using market research opt-in panel. An additional 105 telephone interviews were conducted to sample persons without online or smartphone access. Respondents were quota sampled to be demographically representative. The primary analytic technique was k means cluster analysis, supplemented with other techniques including multi-dimensional scaling and use of respondent - as well as sample-standardized data when necessary to address differences in response set for some groups of respondents. Identified segments were profiled against demographic, behavioural self-report, attitudinal, and communication channel variables, with differences by segment tested for statistical significance. Seven segments were identified, including distinctly different groups of persons who tended toward a high level of compliance and several that were relatively low in compliance. The segments were characterized by distinctive patterns of demographics, attitudes, behaviours, trust in information sources, and communication channels preferred. Segments were further validated by comparing the segmentation variable versus a set of demographic variables as predictors of reported protective behaviours in the past two weeks and of vaccine refusal; the demographics together had about one-quarter the effect size of the single seven-level segment variable. With respect to managerial implications, different communication strategies for each segment are suggested for each segment, illustrating advantages of rich segmentation descriptions for understanding public health communication audiences. Strengths and weaknesses of the methods used are discussed, to help guide future efforts.

Ideological differences in COVID-19 vaccine intention: the effects of trust in the healthcare system, in complementary and alternative medicine, and perceived threat from the disease

Introduction

Politically left-leaning individuals are more likely to get vaccinated against COVID-19, although little is known about the mechanisms underlying the ideological differences in vaccination intentions. Understanding the extent to which trust in the healthcare system, in complementary and alternative medicine, and the perceived threat from the disease contribute to these disparities is crucial, as it could inform targeted interventions to address vaccine hesitancy across the political spectrum.

Methods

The present cross-sectional study conducted among adults living in Slovenia (n = 858) examined the mediating role of trust in the healthcare system, trust in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), and the perceived threat from the virus on COVID-19 vaccination intention.

Results

We found that leftist ideology and trust in the healthcare system positively predicted vaccination intention, whereas CAM negatively predicted this intention. In addition, left-leaning individuals expressed greater trust in the healthcare system and lower trust in CAM, resulting in higher levels of COVID-19 vaccination intention. The serial mediation model confirmed that trust in CAM was a negative predictor, while trust in the healthcare system positively predicted perceived threat.

Discussion

When dealing with vaccine hesitancy among right-oriented individuals, strategies should focus on enhancing trust in the healthcare system and critically evaluating the reliance on CAM.

COVID-19 vaccine decision-making in remote Alaska between November 2020 and November 2021

Vaccine hesitancy is an ongoing barrier to achieve sufficient COVID-19 vaccination coverage. Although there are many studies globally of vaccine hesitancy based on large survey samples, there are fewer in-depth qualitative studies that explore vaccine hesitancy and acceptance as a spectrum of decision-making. In this paper, we begin to describe vaccination decision-making among 58 adults living in remote Alaska based on three waves of online surveys and follow-up semi-structured interviews conducted between November 2020 and November 2021. The survey question of intention was not a predictor of adoption for about one third of the interviewees who were unvaccinated when they took the survey (n=12, 35%). Over half of all interviewees (n=37, 64%) had vaccine-related concerns, including 25 vaccinated individuals (representing 57% of vaccinated interviewees). Most interviewees reported that they learned about COVID-19 vaccines through interpersonal interactions (n=30, 52%) and/or a variety of media sources (n=29, 50%). The major facilitators of acceptance were trust in the information source (n=20, 48% of the 42 who responded), and learning from the experiences of family, friends, and the broader community (n=12, 29%). Further, trust and having a sense of agency appears to be important to interviewee decision-making, regardless of vaccination status and intention.

"In the beginning, I said I wouldn't get it.": Hesitant adoption of the COVID-19 vaccine in remote Alaska between November 2020 and 2021

Achieving sufficient COVID-19 vaccination coverage has been hindered in many areas by vaccine hesitancy. Many studies based on large survey samples have characterized vaccine refusal, but there are fewer in-depth qualitative studies that explore hesitant adoption: the middle-ground between vaccine acceptance and refusal, and how individuals may move across this continuum depending on their lived experience. For this paper, we use the narratives of 25 adults living in off-road, predominately Alaska Native communities to describe the complex decision-making processes undertaken by 'hesitant adopters', defined in our study as those who completed their initial COVID-19 series despite reporting hesitancy. Interviewees' stories help illustrate how hesitant adopters' decision-making processes involved making sense of information through interactions with trusted individuals, lived experiences, observations, emotions, and personal motivations. For the majority of these hesitant adopters' (n = 20, 80%) interpersonal interactions were key in helping to make the decision to get vaccinated. Over half of the interviewees (n = 14, 56%) described how conversations with individuals they trusted, including healthcare providers, family, friends, and interactions through their professional network made them feel safe. One third of the hesitant adopters (n = 7, 28%) attributed their decision to get vaccinated based on the influence of Alaska Native Elders including their knowledge, personal experiences, as well as being motivated by the desire to protect them. Independent research was also important to about a quarter of hesitant adopters (n = 6, 24%), and for these interviewees it was the process of gathering information on their own and learning from others, especially healthcare providers who could answer their questions and alleviate their concerns. This paper illustrates the temporality of vaccine decision-making: vaccine acceptance for those who are hesitant may be an ongoing process that is influenced by personal experience, relationships, and context.

Education, trust, and likelihood to vaccinate against COVID-19 among patients with diabetes in the American South

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to explain the relationship among education, likelihood to vaccinate for COVID-19, and trust in healthcare providers among patients living with diabetes in the American South.

METHODS

Explanatory iterative sequential mixed methods design combined retrospective chart review, self-report surveys, and qualitative interviews.

RESULTS

Analysis of covariance revealed that severity of diabetes was not linked to vaccine acceptance. Overall, patients reported higher likelihood to vaccinate if their healthcare providers strongly recommend the vaccine. People with "some college" education reported lowest likelihood to vaccinate, before and after their healthcare providers' strong recommendation. Integrated analysis revealed the complexity of patient-provider trust and vaccination decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

In the context of COVID vaccination, particularly as conspiracy theories entered the mainstream, measures of trust in the system may be a clearer indicator of vaccine decision making than trust in personal physician.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The nonlinear relationship between education and likelihood to vaccinate challenges providers to talk to patients about knowledge and understanding beyond a superficial, quantitative screening question about education. Health systems and public health officials need to find strategies to build trusting relationships for patients across systems, such as community health workers.

How Attributes of Place Threaten Community Trust in the American South: Opportunities for Improving Pandemic-Related Communication

Trust and mistrust influence the utilization of health services, the quality of overall healthcare, and the prevalence of health disparities. Trust has significant bearing on how communities, and the individuals within them, perceive health information and recommendations. The People and Places Framework is utilized to answer what attributes of place threaten community trust in public health and medical recommendations.Augusta-Richmond County is ranked among the least healthy counties in Georgia despite being home to the best healthcare-to-residence ratios and a vast array of healthcare services. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 31 neighborhood residents. Data were analyzed using the Sort & Sift, Think & Shift method. Threats to community trust were identified within four local-level attributes of place: availability of products and services, social structures, physical structures, and cultural and media messages. We found a broader web of services, policies, and institutions, beyond interactions with health care, that influence the trust placed in health officials and institutions. Participants spoke to both a potential lack of trust (e.g. needs not being met, as through lack of access to services) and mistrust (e.g. negative motives, such as profit seeking or experimentation). Across the four attributes of place, residents expressed opportunities to build trust. Our findings highlight the importance of examining trust at the community level, providing insight into an array of factors that impact trust at a local level, and extend the work on trust and its related constructs (e.g. mistrust). Implications for improving pandemic-related communication through community relationship building are presented.

Critical Dynamics in Black and Latino Parents' Perceptions of Childhood COVID-19 Vaccination: How the "Middle" Moves

National and state data show low adoption of childhood COVID-19 vaccinations, despite emergency use authorizations and availability. We conducted 24 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with Black and Latino parents in New York City (15 in English, 9 in Spanish), who were undecided or somewhat likely to vaccinate their 5 to 11-year-old children in early 2022. The interviews explored the evolution of parental perceptions on childhood COVID-19 vaccines, and were analyzed using a matrix-driven rapid approach to thematic analysis. We present our findings as themes oriented around trust at three levels of the social ecological model. In summary, we found that structural positionality and historical traumas of participants seeded mistrust in institutions and government. This led to parental reliance on personal observations, conversations, and norms within social groups for vaccine decision-making. Our findings also describe key features of trust-building, supportive conversations that shaped the thinking of undecided parents. This study demonstrates how relational trust becomes a key factor in parental vaccine decision-making, and suggests the potential power of community ambassador models of vaccination promotion for increasing success and rebuilding trust with members of the "movable middle."

The social and socio-political embeddedness of COVID-19 vaccination decision-making: A five-country qualitative interview study from Europe

The uptake ofCOVID-19 vaccines has varied considerably across European countries. This study investigates people's decision-making process regarding vaccination by analyzing qualitative interviews (n = 214) with residents from five European countries: Austria, Germany, Italy, Portugal, and Switzerland. We identify three factors that shape vaccination decision-making: individual experiences and pre-existing attitudes towards vaccination, social environment, and socio-political context. Based on this analysis, we present a typology of decision-making regarding COVID-19 vaccines, where some types present stable stances towards vaccines and others change over time. Trust in government and relevant stakeholders, broader social factors, and people's direct social environment were particularly relevant to these dynamics. We conclude that vaccination campaigns should be considered long-term projects (also outside of pandemics) in need of regular adjustment, communication and fine-tuning to ensure public trust. This is particularly pertinent for booster vaccinations, such as COVID-19 or influenza.

Factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine decision-making among hesitant adopters in the United States

Increasing COVID-19 vaccine uptake is crucial to managing the endemic. In this qualitative study, we examine factors influencing the decision-making process of COVID-19 hesitant adopters - those who reported some level of hesitancy and are vaccinated. Using interviews with 49 participants, we documented multiple factors influencing the decision-making process to get the COVID-19 vaccine among a racially and ethnically diverse sample of hesitant adopters in the US. Participants described influences related to sociocultural context and personal and group influences, which affected their decision to get the COVID-19 vaccine despite being hesitant. We find politics, culture, healthcare professionals, employment, vaccine attitudes and beliefs, social networks, and the media influence the decision to get vaccinated. Our findings provide nuanced and in-depth information in their own words. This study expands on prior literature on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, especially among hesitant adopters. These findings can inform future interventions and research targeting vaccine-hesitant populations to increase vaccine uptake.

The Authorization of the First COVID-19 Vaccines Changed the Level and Nature of Intend to Get Vaccinated

Despite the abundance of literature on vaccine hesitancy, how public opinion changes during and after the authorization of a new vaccine remains an open question. The COVID-19 pandemic offers a unique case since the development and roll-out of the first generation of vaccines happened at unprecedented speed. To understand how the public's intent to get vaccinated changed around the emergency authorizations of the first COVID-19 vaccines, we ran a secondary analysis of survey data that consisted of rolling cross-sections of Facebook users in 23 countries (N = 375,627) between July 2020 and April 2021. In contrast to prior longitudinal work, we did not only investigate the change in levels of the intent to get vaccinated but also in the nature of it, i.e., the change in the influence of core predictors. Moreover, our data span a longer phase than prior work and included various countries in the Global South. We found that the intent to get vaccinated decreased around the time of the authorization of the first COVID-19 vaccines before it increased again. In the composition of people who refused vaccination or were undecided, notable differences were found for age, gender, and, most importantly, trust in health authorities as information sources before, around, and after the authorization of the vaccines. We conclude that the importance of trust-inducing communication in the early phase of a vaccination campaign cannot be overstated.