Immunized against science: Narrative community building among vaccine refusing/hesitant parents

Vaccine hesitancy: a structured review from a behavioral perspective (2015-2022)

Vaccine hesitancy, a complex behavioral phenomenon, poses a significant global health threat and has gained renewed attention amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper scrutinized peer-reviewed literature on vaccine hesitancy published from 2015 to 2022, with a specific focus on behavioral perspectives, utilizing a Theories-Constructs-Variables-Contexts-Methods (TCVCM) framework. The study highlighted prominent theoretical approaches, abstract concepts, research variables, global contexts and academic techniques employed across a selected sample of 138 studies. The result is a consolidated overview of research and schematization of the factors influencing vaccine hesitancy and vaccination behaviors. These include individual-level, contextual, vaccine-specific, organizational, and public-policy-related dynamics. The findings corroborated the complexity of vaccine hesitancy and emphasized the difficulties of pursuing vaccine advocacy. The analysis also identified several directions for future research, and the need to conduct more contextual studies in low- and middle-income nations to bring out the cross-cultural nuances of vaccine hesitancy.

Oxford Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (OVHS): a UK-based and US-based online mixed-methods psychometric development and validation study of an instrument to assess vaccine hesitancy

OBJECTIVES

To describe the development, validation and reliability of the Oxford Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (OVHS), a new instrument to assess vaccine hesitancy in the general population.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional validation study.

SETTING

Internet-based study with participants in the UK and USA.

PARTICIPANTS

Demographically representative (stratified by age, sex and race) samples from the UK and USA recruited through the Prolific Academic platform.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

To demonstrate OVHS development, exploratory factor analysis with categorical variables and a polychoric correlation matrix followed by promax oblique rotation on the UK sample was performed. Confirmatory factor analysis with a Satorra-Bentler scaled test statistic evaluating goodness of fit statistics including the root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA), standardised root mean squared residual (SRMR) and comparative fit index (CFI) was performed on the US sample. Reliability as internal consistency was assessed using McDonald's omega. Evidence in support of the predictive, convergent and discriminant validity of the scale was assessed using logistic regression ORs of association (OR) or Pearson correlation coefficients.

RESULTS

Data for factor analysis were obtained from 1004 respondents, 504 in the UK and 500 in the USA. A scree plot, minimum average partial correlation analysis and parallel analysis suggested a three-factor 13-item scale with domains of vaccine beliefs (seven items), pain (three items) and personal deliberation (three items). Responses were recorded on a Likert scale ranging from disagree completely to agree completely, with higher score reflecting greater hesitancy. Potential total scores ranged from 13 to 65. Goodness of fit was excellent, with RMSEA=0.044, SRMR=0.041 and CFI=0.977. Predictive validity for COVID-19 vaccination status was excellent, with logistic regression ORs of association (95% CI) of 0.07 (0.04, 0.13), p<0.0001 for the UK sample for each SD increase in OVHS score, suggesting a 93% decrease in the odds of being vaccinated against COVID-19 for each SD increase in OVHS score. Convergent validity between the OVHS score and the 5C short version scale demonstrated a correlation coefficient of 0.32 (p<0.0001). Discriminant validity with an unrelated desire to perform outdoor activities demonstrated an OR (95% CI) of 1.06 (0.88, 1.29), p=0.523 for the UK sample for each SD increase in OVHS score. McDonald's omega was 0.86 and 0.87 in the UK and US samples, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The OVHS is a feasible, valid and reliable scale for assessing vaccine hesitancy; further testing is warranted.

"I can't see the forest for the ticks, uhm, trees …": The role of online forums in parents' vaccination trajectories

When it comes to health-related information-seeking behavior, online communities play a key role for some groups, such as parents. With a case study of online communities in a loosely organized vaccination system, that of Austria, we study how parents make use of a prominent online forum (parents.at) in their vaccination trajectories and situate this analysis in its socio-political context. Based on inductive qualitative analysis of relevant threads (n = 27), we find that parents use forums in three ways: First, the forum serves as a platform through which parents seek orientation in a loosely organized and fragmented vaccination system. Second, the forum offers space for sharing, collecting, and evaluating different forms of expertise. In doing so, parents carve out a space in which they can comfortably put lay expertise and credentialed expertise on a par, particularly in their advice to peers. Third, and on that basis, parents use the forum for deliberating on future or past vaccination-related decisions. In doing so, they frequently draw on idiosyncratic notions of individual risks and benefits. These three practices enable parents to accumulate and share what we label navigational capital. We conclude that parents resort to online spaces both out of a subjective need and, for some, as a result of a dysfunction of the national childhood vaccination program which offers little orientation for parents.

Netnography: A novel methodology for nursing research

AIM

The aim of this paper is to critically reflect on our team's experience of using netnography to explore vaccine-hesitant parents and pregnant women, a group who have traditionally been difficult to recruit to research studies and a methodology that is underutilized in nursing research.

DESIGN

This paper takes the form of a discussion paper that will utilize data obtained from a qualitative netnographic study. Relevant literature was searched including 2015-2023.

METHOD

This paper utilized data obtained from a qualitative study that used netnography as methodology and an online minable data source. Netnography is a relatively new methodology that uses the online environment to explore digital cultures and study networked society. It pays particular attention to cultural insights and conditions that impact the human experience. This methodology is particularly relevant to nursing research which is often humanistic and always conducted to ensure optimal patient outcomes.

RESULTS

Using netnography for the first time has resulted in four main insights. These include the adaptability of the process; the creativity involved in designing the site; the ready acceptance of the site by participants and the co-creation knowledge that resulted.

CONCLUSIONS

Netnography is a creative methodology that was successful in accessing and engaging the vaccine-hesitant community, a group who are often marginalized. Netnography has the advantage of using a platform that is familiar and safe for many people and provides access to an extensive minable data source.

A taxonomy of anti-vaccination arguments from a systematic literature review and text modelling

The proliferation of anti-vaccination arguments is a threat to the success of many immunization programmes. Effective rebuttal of contrarian arguments requires an approach that goes beyond addressing flaws in the arguments, by also considering the attitude roots-that is, the underlying psychological attributes driving a person's belief-of opposition to vaccines. Here, through a pre-registered systematic literature review of 152 scientific articles and thematic analysis of anti-vaccination arguments, we developed a hierarchical taxonomy that relates common arguments and themes to 11 attitude roots that explain why an individual might express opposition to vaccination. We further validated our taxonomy on coronavirus disease 2019 anti-vaccination misinformation, through a combination of human coding and machine learning using natural language processing algorithms. Overall, the taxonomy serves as a theoretical framework to link expressed opposition of vaccines to their underlying psychological processes. This enables future work to develop targeted rebuttals and other interventions that address the underlying motives of anti-vaccination arguments.

Losing trust: Processes of vaccine hesitancy in parents' narratives

Lack of trust is central in becoming hesitant towards vaccines, but research on vaccine hesitancy lacks detailed examination of the processes of losing trust. Based on ethnographic interviews with 38 parents in Finland, we explore how and why they have lost their trust in vaccination. We identified two paths to losing trust in vaccination. One was connected to mistrust - a cumulating suspicious attitude toward vaccines and related institutions. The other was associated with distrust - a more sudden loss of trust. We identified four ideal type narratives of losing trust: the activist, the hesitant, the disillusioned and the negotiator. The narratives of the activist and the hesitant were connected to mistrust. The activists were certain of their vaccination decisions whereas the hesitant parents were not. The narratives of the disillusioned and the negotiator were connected with distrust. The disillusioned parents had lost their trust due to adverse effects of vaccination and a lack of institutional support. The negotiators suspected adverse effects and were less certain about their decisions. The article provides insight into the ways in which people lose trust in vaccination, which is crucial for supporting trusting relationships between vaccine-advocating institutions and the publics.

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.

Injecting fun? Humour, conspiracy theory and (anti)vaccination discourse in popular media

Conspiracy theories have accompanied vaccination since its mass introduction, circulating, among other forms, in humour - such as cartoons, and now, memes. Importantly, humour has targeted both vaccination and anti-vaccination stances. In this study, we discuss the peculiarities of humorous content within the vaccination debate and uncover the most popular thematic categories, forms and logical mechanisms of humour. We show that humorous and serious discussions on vaccination go hand-in-hand, but playfulness and ambiguity of humour complicate public understanding of the vaccination debate. Our analysis shows that vaccination humour often simplifies the complex issue of vaccination and makes it more understandable and more tangible for a broad audience.

Understanding the landscape of web-based medical misinformation about vaccination

Given the high rates of vaccine hesitancy, web-based medical misinformation about vaccination is a serious issue. We sought to understand the nature of Google searches leading to medical misinformation about vaccination, and guided by fuzzy-trace theory, the characteristics of misinformation pages related to comprehension, inference-making, and medical decision-making. We collected data from web pages presenting vaccination information. We assessed whether web pages presented medical misinformation, had an overarching gist, used narrative, and employed emotional appeals. We used Search Engine Optimization tools to determine the number of backlinks from other web pages, monthly Google traffic, and Google Keywords. We used Coh-Metrix to measure readability and Gist Inference Scores (GIS). For medical misinformation web pages, Google traffic and backlinks were heavily skewed with means of 138.8 visitors/month and 805 backlinks per page. Medical misinformation pages were significantly more likely than other vaccine pages to have backlinks from other pages, and significantly less likely to receive at least one visitor from Google searches per month. The top Google searches leading to medical misinformation were "the truth about vaccinations," "dangers of vaccination," and "pro con vaccines." Most frequently, pages challenged vaccine safety, with 32.7% having an overarching gist, 7.7% presenting narratives, and 17.3% making emotional appeals. Emotional appeals were significantly more common with medical misinformation than other high-traffic vaccination pages. Misinformation pages had a mean readability grade level of 11.5, and a mean GIS of - 0.234. Low GIS scores are a likely barrier to understanding gist, and are the "Achilles' heel" of misinformation pages.

When good messages go wrong: Perspectives on COVID-19 vaccines and vaccine communication from generally vaccine accepting individuals in Canada

Vaccines are one of the most important and successful public health interventions to reduce the spread of infectious diseases. However, unlike childhood diseases and routine vaccines, COVID-19 is a novel threat, and COVID-19 vaccines may elicit specific anxieties. Through focus groups, we examine the concerns and attitudes toward the COVID-19 vaccine expressed by individuals who accept routine vaccinations in Canada. We also conducted a pre-focus group survey to document participant attitudes towards vaccines in general. While most participants had received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine or had the intention to get it, many had concerns. First, participants felt anxious about the quick development and approval of the vaccines, even if they recognized that the vaccines have undergone clinical trials. Second, participants felt confused about shifting public health guidelines regarding vaccine safety, changing the interval between doses, and mixing different vaccine brands. Finally, participants said they felt abandoned when deciding whether to get vaccinated or not. People who generally accept vaccines expressed concerns about COVID-19 vaccines, mostly related to the inevitable uncertainties of a new vaccine (i.e. novelty, safety, mandates, etc.). COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, understood as concerns about the novelty of a vaccine and the rapid implementation of it, could be useful for understanding questioning attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccines from people who accept routine vaccinations. Understanding COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy can also provide valuable insights as booster doses are periodically needed and people may not be as accepting of these additional doses.

Decision making in vaccine hesitant parents and pregnant women - An integrative review

Objectives

: Vaccine refusal is increasing in Australia and is a major concern in high- and middle-income countries. There is evidence to suggest that some parents, even those who elect to immunise, may be vaccine hesitant with some manipulating the schedule by excluding or delaying some vaccines. The aim of this review was to gain an understanding of factors that influence vaccine decision-making in pregnant women and parents of children.

Design

: An integrative review approach was used to produce an analysis of existing literature on vaccine decision-making in pregnancy and parents. As the broadest of review methods, an integrative review can include a range of experimental and non-experimental research, thereby ensuring the inclusion of data from multiple perspectives.

Data Sources

: Online databases were searched for research related to vaccine decision-making in pregnant women and parents. Original and review articles were sought that were published in English between 2015 and 2021. Reviewed articles included qualitative and quantitative studies and systematic reviews. No mixed methods papers were located or excluded from this review.

Review methods

: The review method was an integrative review informed by Coughlan.

Results

: Papers from thirteen predominantly high- and middle-income countries were selected for this review. A total of 31 articles fit the inclusion/exclusion criteria, including qualitative, quantitative and review articles. Three main themes were identified including the role of healthcare professionals, vaccine safety concerns and alternative influences. Alternative influences included: social media, friends and family, religion, conspiracy theories and salutogenic parenting. Findings suggest that high levels of anxiety are involved in vaccine decision-making with parents seeking information from multiple sources including healthcare professionals, friends and family and social media.

Conclusions

: Pregnancy is an ideal time to provide education on both pregnancy and childhood vaccinations. However, some parents reported dissatisfaction in their therapeutic relationships with healthcare professionals. As a result, parents can resort to their own information seeking, in the main via social media which has been linked to vaccine refusal. Additionally, some healthcare professionals report feeling inadequately prepared for the role of immunisation promotion and provision. Parental information seeking from non-traditional sources has been shown to result in the acquisition of misinformation, exposure to conspiracy theories, the inevitable loss of vaccine confidence and subsequent vaccine refusal.

To wear or not to wear? Unpacking the #NoMask discourses and conversations on Twitter

In the context of the COVID-19 health crisis, the use of face masks has been a topic broadly debated. In many Western countries, especially at the heights of the pandemic, discussions on the use of protective facemasks were often linked to what were mainly political considerations, often fueled by health-related misinformation. Our study brings together social sciences and computer science expertise to retrospectively unpack the #NoMask discourses and conversations using both network analysis approaches on big data retrieved from Twitter and qualitative analyses on sub-sets of relevant social media data. By looking comparatively at two dataset gathered at different stages of the health crisis (2020 and 2022), we aim to better understand the role of Twitter in that interesting area where the dissemination of health misinformation became capitalized by the political narrative linking the social discontent caused by the socio-economic impacts of the pandemic to specific political ideologies. Our analyses show that there has never been a unique 'NoMask movement,' nor a defined online community. Rather, we can identify a range of relatively niche, loosely connected, and heterogeneous actors that, in the course of the pandemic, independently pushed diverse (but converging and compatible) discourses. Conversations directly linked to the #NoMask relevant hashtags are overall limited, as twitters using them are not talking to each other; nonetheless, they successfully engaged a larger audience.

Towards a feminist philosophy of engagements in health-related research

Engagement with publics, patients, and stakeholders is an important part of the health research environment today,and different modalities of 'engaged' health research have proliferated in recent years. Yet, th ere is no consensus on what, exactly, 'engaging' means, what it should look like, and what the aims, justifications, or motivations for it should be. In this paper, we set out what we see as important, outstanding challenges around the practice and theory of engaging and consider the tensions and possibilities that the diverse landscape of engaging evokes. We examine the roots, present modalities and institutional frameworks that have been erected around engaging, including how they shape and delimit how engagements are framed, enacted, and justified. We inspect the related issue of knowledge production within and through engagements, addressing whether engagements can, or should, be framed as knowledge producing activities. We then unpack the question of how engagements are or could be valued and evaluated, emphasising the plural ways in which 'value' can be conceptualised and generated. We conclude by calling for a philosophy of engagements that can capture the diversity of related practices, concepts and justifications around engagements, and account for the plurality of knowledges and value that engagements engender, while remaining flexible and attentive to the structural conditions under which engagements occur. Such philosophy should be a feminist one, informed by feminist epistemological and methodological approaches to equitable modes of research participation, knowledge production, and valuing. Especially, translating feminist tools of reflexivity and positionalityinto the sphere of engagements can enable a synergy of empirical, epistemic and normative considerations in developing accounts of engaging in both theory and praxis. Modestly, here, we hope to carve out the starting points for this work.

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.

Development of a Codebook of Online Anti-Vaccination Rhetoric to Manage COVID-19 Vaccine Misinformation

Vaccine hesitancy (delay in obtaining a vaccine, despite availability) represents a significant hurdle to managing the COVID-19 pandemic. Vaccine hesitancy is in part related to the prevalence of anti-vaccine misinformation and disinformation, which are spread through social media and user-generated content platforms. This study uses qualitative coding methodology to identify salient narratives and rhetorical styles common to anti-vaccine and COVID-denialist media. It organizes these narratives and rhetorics according to theme, imagined antagonist, and frequency. Most frequent were narratives centered on "corrupt elites" and rhetorics appealing to the vulnerability of children. The identification of these narratives and rhetorics may assist in developing effective public health messaging campaigns, since narrative and emotion have demonstrated persuasive effectiveness in other public health communication settings.

"Following Your Gut" or "Questioning the Scientific Evidence": Understanding Vaccine Skepticism among More-Educated Dutch Parents

This study aims to understand vaccine skepticism among a population where it is remarkably prevalent-more-educated Dutch parents-through 31 in-depth interviews. Whereas all respondents ascribe a central role to the individual in obtaining knowledge (i.e., individualist epistemology), this is expressed in two repertoires. A neoromantic one focuses on deriving truth through intuition and following a "natural" path and informs a risk typology: embracing (refusing) "natural" ("unnatural") risks such as "childhood diseases" ("pharmaceutical substances"). A critical-reflexive repertoire centers on scientific methods but is skeptical about the scientific consensus and informs a risk calculation: opting for the choice perceived to bear the smallest risk. Thus, the same vaccine can be rejected because of its perceived harm to natural processes (neoromantic repertoire) or because its scientific basis is deemed insufficient (critical-reflexive repertoire). Moreover, these opposing repertoires are likely to inspire different responses to the same health-related information.