A multi-site intervention using influencers to communicate about syringe service programmes

Introduction

In the USA, syringe services programmes (SSPs) provide a range of harm reduction services and have numerous benefits for communities. However, stigma, misconceptions about SSPs and changing policies/legislation remain a challenge to effective implementation. This study reviews the implementation of two digital interventions, Appalachian Influence and Shared Influence, which used social media influencers and digital volunteers to communicate positive information about harm reduction and SSPs.

Methods

The intervention was designed to deliver accurate and supportive messaging in locally relevant and meaningful ways. Messaging was informed by interviews with subject matter experts and community organisations, and was integrated into prompts used by local influencers (paid individuals with more than 1,000 followers) and digital volunteers (unpaid individuals with no following requirement, who joined the project independently).

Results

In the first 6 months of implementation, Appalachian Influence and Shared Influence engaged a total of 9,014 individuals, 236 of whom were paid influencers and 8,778 of whom were digital volunteers. Paid influencer posts achieved a total of 868,943 impressions, 42,432 engagements and 1,567 comments. Comments on paid influencer posts were overwhelmingly positive, with 87.4% positive and 0.8% negative. Interviews showed the importance of understanding local realities, leading with compassion and emphasising the 'human' aspects of dependency and addiction in messaging.

Conclusion

This study shows the potential to implement an influencer-led social media intervention to reach people with authentic and compassionate messaging about harm reduction and SSPs. Future research should examine intervention effectiveness and how this approach can be applied to other stigmatised topics.

80 Archetypes of vaccine hesitant caregivers towards COVID-19 immunization during a global pandemic: A qualitative study

Primary Subject area

Public Health and Preventive Medicine

Background

As Canada embarks on its rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine, vaccine hesitancy has the potential to hamper success of the vaccination campaign. Multiple surveys show that the number of Canadians willing to take the vaccine is insufficient to achieve herd immunity. Therefore, governments and health agencies are looking for solutions to increase vaccination uptake. Obtaining a better understanding of the perspective of those who are vaccine-hesitant is critical to developing successful implementation strategies for COVID-19 vaccination.

Objectives

To explore COVID-19 vaccination determinants among hesitant caregivers and describe categories of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

Design/Methods

We conducted 23 semi-structured telephone interviews with parents recruited from a tertiary pediatric care centre. Seventeen participants had previously attended a specialty clinic to discuss vaccine hesitancy; the remaining were recruited from an infectious diseases follow-up clinic. The interview guide was structured around the Theoretical Domains Framework, assessing 14 behavioural constructs to identify specific determinants that guide behaviour change. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed by two independent data coders using a pragmatic inductive approach. Recurring themes were noted among subgroups of participants, who were subsequently divided into categories based on their underlying concerns.

Results

Five archetypes of vaccine-hesitant caregivers emerged in our data (Table 1). 1). “Bubble Dwellers” perceive themselves to be safe by following public health recommendations, and distinguish themselves from higher-risk groups to whom the vaccine should first be offered. 2). “Worriers and Delayers” identify the pandemic as a threat and are generally supportive of vaccines, but are concerned about side effects and issues surrounding vaccine development and prefer to delay vaccination. 3). “Need-for-Normals” are more concerned about social isolation and the economy than the direct effects of the COVID-19 virus, but express that the idea of a “return to normal” may sway their opinions regarding the vaccine. 4). “Exceptionalists” hold personal misperceptions of vaccine contraindications due to comorbidities or previous experiences with vaccination, and are concerned that the current rollout invokes a “one size fits all” model that does not apply to their circumstances. 5. “Freedom Fighters” view the pandemic as a hoax, are anti-establishment, and believe the information they have been provided is not convincing for them to adopt the vaccine.

Conclusion

The evolving pandemic provides a unique opportunity to understand determinants of vaccination intention in the vaccine hesitant population. Our qualitative study is unique in that we were able to draw upon pre-identified vaccine hesitant individuals to explore their perspectives around COVID-19 immunization. We propose that rather than viewing these individuals as one homogenous group, policymakers and health professionals address these discrete subgroups with specific communication tools and information. We are hopeful that our results will help tailor implementation strategies that are targeted to different vaccine hesitancy archetypes, as the vaccine is made available to the general public in the coming year.