Storytelling in the context of vaccine refusal: a strategy to improve communication and immunisation

Narratives, Information and Manifestations of Resistance to Persuasion in Online Discussions of HPV Vaccination

There are both theoretical accounts and empirical evidence for the fact that, in health communication, narratives (story telling) may have a persuasive advantage when compared with information (the provision of facts). The dominant explanation for this potential advantage is that narratives inhibit people's resistance to persuasion, particularly in the form of counterarguing. Evidence in this area to date has most often been gathered through lab or field experiments. In the current study we took a novel approach, gathering our data from naturally-occurring, non-experimental and organically evolving online interactions about vaccinations. We focus on five threads from the parenting forum Mumsnet Talk that centered on indecision about the HPV vaccination. Our analysis revealed that narratives and information were used by posters in similar quantities as a means of providing vaccination-related advice. We also found similar frequencies of direct engagement with both narratives and information. However, our findings showed that narratives resulted in a significantly higher proportion of posts exhibiting supportive engagement, whereas information resulted in posts exhibiting a significantly higher proportion of challenges, including counterarguing and other manifestations of posters' resistance to persuasion. The proportions of supportive versus challenging engagement also varied depending on the topic and vaccine stance of narratives. Notwithstanding contextual explanations for these patterns, our findings, based on this original approach of using naturalistic data, provide a novel kind of evidence for the potential of narratives to inhibit counterarguing in authentic health-related discourse.

Pro-vaccination personal narratives in response to online hesitancy about the HPV vaccine: The challenge of tellability

Experimental studies have shown that narratives can be effective persuasive tools in addressing vaccine hesitancy, including regarding the vaccine against the human papillomavirus (HPV), which is transmitted via sexual contact and can cause cervical cancer. This paper presents an analysis of a thread from the online parenting forum Mumsnet Talk where an initially undecided Original Poster is persuaded to vaccinate their child against HPV by a respondent's narrative of cervical cancer that they describe as difficult to share. This paper considers this particular narrative alongside all other narratives that precede the decision announced on the Mumsnet thread. It shows how producing pro-vaccination narratives about HPV involves challenges regarding 'tellability' - what makes the events in a narrative reportable or worth telling. We suggest that this has implications for the context-dependent nature of tellability, the role of parenting forums in vaccination-related discussions, and narrative-based communication about vaccinations more generally.

Tackling Vaccine Hesitancy and Increasing Vaccine Willingness Among Parents of Unvaccinated Children in Austria

Objectives: In autumn 2021, there was a surge of COVID-19 infections in Austria, and vaccination coverage stagnated at a below-average level compared to the rest of Europe. Surveys showed that both children and adolescents were the main drivers of the rising infection rates and that vaccination numbers were particularly low in this age group. This was due to widespread vaccination skepticism and hesitancy among parents of unvaccinated children and adolescents. Methods: Here, we describe a novel intervention concept that allowed us to efficiently tackle parental vaccine hesitancy. We designed an intervention series that followed a reproducible format based on online face-to-face seminars in groups of a maximum of twenty people. Each seminar included an anonymous online questionnaire for internal quality control. Moreover, we assessed the motives of parental vaccine hesitancy and asked participants to rate subjective vaccine willingness for their children on a scale of zero to ten. Results: Within 8 weeks, more than 580 people participated in the seminar series. We found that concerns about the side effects of the vaccine were the predominant motive of vaccination hesitancy among the study population. Overall, the intervention could successfully increase the median parental vaccination willingness of participants from a score of five to eight. We identified tree hesitancy motives (distrust towards the pharmaceutical industry, the government, or feelings of restriction from personal freedom) that were associated with below-average vaccination willingness and significant lower increase. Conclusion: With this study we analyzed motives driving COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy among parents of unvaccinated children and reasons of parents to restrain their children from getting vaccinated. The intervention method described here, could effectively address individual concerns on a personal level while at the same time reach a large number of people across geographical and language barriers. Thereby we could significantly increase subjective vaccination willingness of the participants. Our approach is easy to apply, highly cost-effective, and can be used to tackle any kind of medical misinformation.

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.

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.

Negative COVID-19 Vaccine Information on Twitter: Content Analysis

Background

Social media platforms, such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube, have a role in spreading anti-vaccine opinion and misinformation. Vaccines have been an important component of managing the COVID-19 pandemic, so content that discourages vaccination is generally seen as a concern to public health. However, not all negative information about vaccines is explicitly anti-vaccine, and some of it may be an important part of open communication between public health experts and the community.

Objective

This research aimed to determine the frequency of negative COVID-19 vaccine information on Twitter in the first 4 months of 2021.

Methods

We manually coded 7306 tweets sampled from a large sampling frame of tweets related to COVID-19 and vaccination collected in early 2021. We also coded the geographic location and mentions of specific vaccine producers. We compared the prevalence of anti-vaccine and negative vaccine information over time by author type, geography (United States, United Kingdom, and Canada), and vaccine developer.

Results

We found that 1.8% (131/7306) of tweets were anti-vaccine, but 21% (1533/7306) contained negative vaccine information. The media and government were common sources of negative vaccine information but not anti-vaccine content. Twitter users from the United States generated the plurality of negative vaccine information; however, Twitter users in the United Kingdom were more likely to generate negative vaccine information. Negative vaccine information related to the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine was the most common, particularly in March and April 2021.

Conclusions

Overall, the volume of explicit anti-vaccine content on Twitter was small, but negative vaccine information was relatively common and authored by a breadth of Twitter users (including government, medical, and media sources). Negative vaccine information should be distinguished from anti-vaccine content, and its presence on social media could be promoted as evidence of an effective communication system that is honest about the potential negative effects of vaccines while promoting the overall health benefits. However, this content could still contribute to vaccine hesitancy if it is not properly contextualized.

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.

Role of the nurse in addressing vaccine hesitancy and misinformation on social media

Vaccine hesitancy, defined as the refusal or delay of acceptance of vaccines, is a threat to the elimination and/or eradication of vaccine-preventable diseases, and therefore has significant implications for global health. Negative and conflicting vaccination information on social media can lead to vaccine hesitancy, including among parents who need to decide whether to have their children vaccinated. This article discusses the dissemination and content of vaccination information on social media, and explores the effects this can have on vaccine hesitancy and uptake. It also outlines various strategies that nurses can use to address vaccine hesitancy and misinformation on social media.

Factors that influence parents' and informal caregivers' views and practices regarding routine childhood vaccination: a qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Childhood vaccination is one of the most effective ways to prevent serious illnesses and deaths in children. However, worldwide, many children do not receive all recommended vaccinations, for several potential reasons. Vaccines might be unavailable, or parents may experience difficulties in accessing vaccination services; for instance, because of poor quality health services, distance from a health facility, or lack of money. Some parents may not accept available vaccines and vaccination services. Our understanding of what influences parents' views and practices around childhood vaccination, and why some parents may not accept vaccines for their children, is still limited. This synthesis links to Cochrane Reviews of the effectiveness of interventions to improve coverage or uptake of childhood vaccination.

OBJECTIVES

- Explore parents' and informal caregivers' views and practices regarding routine childhood vaccination, and the factors influencing acceptance, hesitancy, or nonacceptance of routine childhood vaccination. - Develop a conceptual understanding of what and how different factors reduce parental acceptance of routine childhood vaccination. - Explore how the findings of this review can enhance our understanding of the related Cochrane Reviews of intervention effectiveness.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and three other databases for eligible studies from 1974 to June 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that: utilised qualitative methods for data collection and analysis; focused on parents' or caregivers' views, practices, acceptance, hesitancy, or refusal of routine vaccination for children aged up to six years; and were from any setting globally where childhood vaccination is provided.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used a pre-specified sampling frame to sample from eligible studies, aiming to capture studies that were conceptually rich, relevant to the review's phenomenon of interest, from diverse geographical settings, and from a range of income-level settings. We extracted contextual and methodological data from each sampled study. We used a meta-ethnographic approach to analyse and synthesise the evidence. We assessed methodological limitations using a list of criteria used in previous Cochrane Reviews and originally based on the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme quality assessment tool for qualitative studies. We used the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach to assess our confidence in each finding. We integrated the findings of this review with those from relevant Cochrane Reviews of intervention effectiveness. We did this by mapping whether the underlying theories or components of trial interventions included in those reviews related to or targeted the overarching factors influencing parental views and practices regarding routine childhood vaccination identified by this review.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 145 studies in the review and sampled 27 of these for our analysis. Six studies were conducted in Africa, seven in the Americas, four in South-East Asia, nine in Europe, and one in the Western Pacific. Studies included urban and rural settings, and high-, middle-, and low-income settings. Many complex factors were found to influence parents' vaccination views and practices, which we divided into four themes. Firstly, parents' vaccination ideas and practices may be influenced by their broader ideas and practices surrounding health and illness generally, and specifically with regards to their children, and their perceptions of the role of vaccination within this context. Secondly, many parents' vaccination ideas and practices were influenced by the vaccination ideas and practices of the people they mix with socially. At the same time, shared vaccination ideas and practices helped some parents establish social relationships, which in turn strengthened their views and practices around vaccination. Thirdly, parents' vaccination ideas and practices may be influenced by wider political issues and concerns, and particularly their trust (or distrust) in those associated with vaccination programmes. Finally, parents' vaccination ideas and practices may be influenced by their access to and experiences of vaccination services and their frontline healthcare workers. We developed two concepts for understanding possible pathways to reduced acceptance of childhood vaccination. The first concept, 'neoliberal logic', suggests that many parents, particularly from high-income countries, understood health and healthcare decisions as matters of individual risk, choice, and responsibility. Some parents experienced this understanding as in conflict with vaccination programmes, which emphasise generalised risk and population health. This perceived conflict led some parents to be less accepting of vaccination for their children. The second concept, 'social exclusion', suggests that some parents, particularly from low- and middle-income countries, were less accepting of childhood vaccination due to their experiences of social exclusion. Social exclusion may damage trustful relationships between government and the public, generate feelings of isolation and resentment, and give rise to demotivation in the face of public services that are poor quality and difficult to access. These factors in turn led some parents who were socially excluded to distrust vaccination, to refuse vaccination as a form of resistance or a way to bring about change, or to avoid vaccination due to the time, costs, and distress it creates. Many of the overarching factors our review identified as influencing parents' vaccination views and practices were underrepresented in the interventions tested in the four related Cochrane Reviews of intervention effectiveness.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review has revealed that parents' views and practices regarding childhood vaccination are complex and dynamic social processes that reflect multiple webs of influence, meaning, and logic. We have provided a theorised understanding of the social processes contributing to vaccination acceptance (or not), thereby complementing but also extending more individualistic models of vaccination acceptance. Successful development of interventions to promote acceptance and uptake of childhood vaccination will require an understanding of, and then tailoring to, the specific factors influencing vaccination views and practices of the group(s) in the target setting. The themes and concepts developed through our review could serve as a basis for gaining this understanding, and subsequent development of interventions that are potentially more aligned with the norms, expectations, and concerns of target users.

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.

On the Usefulness of Narratives: An Interdisciplinary Review and Theoretical Model

Background

How can we use stories from other people to promote better health experiences, improve judgments about health, and increase the quality of medical decisions without introducing bias, systematically persuading the listeners to change their attitudes, or altering behaviors in nonoptimal ways? More practically, should narratives be used in health education, promotion, or behavior change interventions?

Method

In this article, we address these questions by conducting a narrative review of a diverse body of literature on narratives from several disciplines to gain a better understanding about what narratives do, including their role in communication, engagement, recall, persuasion, and health behavior change. We also review broad theories about information processing and persuasion from psychology and more specific models about narrative messaging found in the health communication and marketing literatures to provide insight into the processes by which narratives have their effect on health behavior.

Results

To address major gaps in our theoretical understanding about how narratives work and what effects they will have on health behavior, we propose the Narrative Immersion Model, whose goal is to identify the parameters that predict the specific impact of a particular narrative (e.g. persuade, inform, comfort, etc.) based on the type of narrative message (e.g. process, experience, or outcome narrative). Further, the Narrative Immersion Model describes the magnitude of the effect as increasing through successive layers of engagement with the narrative: interest, identification, and immersion. Finally, the Narrative Immersion Model identifies characteristics of the narrative intervention that encourage greater immersion within a given narrative.

Conclusions

We believe there are important communication gaps in areas areas of behavioral medicine that could be addressed with narratives; however, more work is needed in order to employ narrative messaging systematically. The Narrative Immersion Model advances our theoretical understanding about narrative processing and its subsequent effects on knowledge, attitudes, and behavior.

How organisations promoting vaccination respond to misinformation on social media: a qualitative investigation

BACKGROUND

Vaccination misinformation is associated with serious public health consequences, such as a decrease in vaccination rates and a risk of disease outbreaks. Although social media offers organisations promoting vaccination unparalleled opportunities to promote evidence and counterbalance misinformation, we know relatively little about their internal workings. The aim of this paper is to explore the strategies, perspectives and experiences of communicators working within such organisations as they promote vaccination and respond to misinformation on social media.

METHODS

Using qualitative methods, we purposively sampled 21 participants responsible for routine social media activity and strategy from Australian organisations actively promoting vaccination on social media, including government health departments, local health services, advocacy groups, professional associations and technical/scientific organisations. We conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews to explore their perspectives and practices. Applying Risk Communication principles as a lens, we used Framework Analysis to explore the data both inductively and deductively.

RESULTS

Organisations promoting vaccination face multiple challenges on social media, including misinformation, anti-science sentiment, a complex vaccination narrative and anti-vaccine activists. They developed a range of sophisticated strategies in response, including communicating with openness in an evidence-informed way; creating safe spaces to encourage audience dialogue; fostering community partnerships; and countering misinformation with care.

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend that communicators consider directly countering misinformation because of the potential influence on their silent audience, i.e. those observing but not openly commenting, liking or sharing posts. Refutations should be straightforward, succinct and avoid emphasizing misinformation. Communicators should consider pairing scientific evidence with stories that speak to audience beliefs and values. Finally, organisations could enhance vaccine promotion and their own credibility on social media by forming strong links with organisations sharing similar values and goals.

How are children who are delayed in the Childhood Vaccination Programme vaccinated: A nationwide register-based cohort study of Danish children aged 15-24 months and semi-structured interviews with vaccination providers

Aims: Delay of childhood vaccinations is common and influences efforts to reduce targeted diseases. In Denmark, the diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio and Haemophilus influenzae type b (DTaP-IPV-Hib) vaccine is recommended at ages 3, 5 and 12 months and the first measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (MMR-1) at 15 months. Following guidelines, children delayed at age 15 months should receive MMR-1 and DTaP-IPV-Hib-3 simultaneously, unless DTaP-IPV-Hib-2 was received less than 6 months ago, when MMR-1 alone is recommended. We studied compliance with these guidelines and the reasons for non-compliance with a focus on vaccination providers. Methods: We used a nationwide register-based cohort study of children born in Denmark between January 2000 and June 2013, who were lacking MMR-1 and DTaP-IPV-Hib-3 at age 15 months and were followed to 24 months. We also performed semi-structured telephone interviews with vaccination providers. Results: The study consisted of 156,921 children (18% of the children born in the period). Among the 40,060 children who had received DTaP-IPV-Hib-2 less than 6 months ago, 37,892 (95%) received MMR-1 alone. Among the 88,469 children who had received DTaP-IPV-Hib-2 more than 6 months ago, 6334 (7%) received DTaP-IPV-Hib-3 and MMR-1 simultaneously. The interviews indicated that some vaccination providers are reluctant to give multiple vaccinations at the same visit and some have a preference of following the usual sequence in the programme. Conclusions: Vaccination providers generally complied with the recommended minimum 6 months' interval between DTaP-IPV-Hib-2 and DTaP-IPV-Hib-3. Conversely, there was a low compliance with the recommendation to administer DTaP-IPV-Hib-3 and MMR-1 simultaneously. More efforts are needed to ensure timely vaccination.