Counteracting Vaccine Misinformation: An Active Learning Module

Rises in vaccine hesitancy and the incidence of vaccine-preventable illnesses is, in part, due to an increase in vaccine misinformation. Consequently, many patients express skepticism and mistrust of vaccines. It is important that future clinicians are well equipped to understand vaccine-related literature to prepare them for difficult conversations with patients. This module incorporated various active learning approaches to evaluate vaccine-related literature, discuss true contraindications for vaccination, and aid students in approaching patient-clinician conversations about vaccines. Data gained from delivery of this module suggests that students benefit from gaining knowledge and cultivating communication skills about vaccines early in health professions education.

Utilizing Google trends to monitor coronavirus vaccine interest and hesitancies

Introduction

Vaccine hesitancy remains a serious challenge for ending the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Digital media has played an immense role in the spread of information during the pandemic. One method to gauge public interest in COVID-19 related information is to examine patterns of online search queries.

Methods

Google Trends (GT) was used to analyze results for search terms relating to COVID-19 vaccine misinformation, information, and accessibility from October 1st, 2020 to May 27th, 2021. GT allows you to compare multiple queries at one time. The resultant relative search volumes (RSVs) range from 0 to 100. The search term and point in time on the graph that has the greatest search volume is given a score of 100 and all other terms and times are given values relative to that maximum. Search interest peaks were analyzed by subgroups (misinformation, information seeking, and access seeking) and across key time points throughout the pandemic.

Results

GT analysis revealed that search interest related to vaccine misinformation, general information, and access seeking changed in relation to events taking place throughout the pandemic. The most commonly searched terms in each subgroup were: “Covid vaccine infertility”, “Covid vaccine side effects”, and “Covid vaccine appointment”. Searches related to misinformation peaked in December 2020. Search terms in the general information category peaked in April 2021. RSVs for access seeking terms peaked in March 2021 and have decreased since April 2021.

Conclusion

Misinformation RSVs were highest after FDA authorization and have multiple repeated spikes after subsequent vaccine announcements. General information seeking terms peaked concurrently with increased vaccination uptake in the United States. Search interest has decreased with wider vaccine availability, despite many individuals in the United States remaining unvaccinated. GT can be used to monitor trends in public attitudes and misinformation regarding COVID-19 vaccines and further target education.

Forming and updating vaccination beliefs: does the continued effect of misinformation depend on what we think we know?

People may cling to false facts even in the face of updated and correct information. The present study confronted misconceptions about the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and a novel, fictitious Zika vaccine. Two experiments are reported, examining misconceptions as motivated by a poor risk understanding (Experiment 1, N = 130) or the exposure to conspiracy theories (Experiment 2, N = 130). Each experiment featured a Misinformation condition, wherein participants were presented with fictitious stories containing some misinformation (Experiment 1) and rumours focused on conspiracy theories (Experiment 2) that were later retracted by public health experts and a No misinformation condition, containing no reference to misinformation and rumours. Across experiments, participants were more hesitant towards vaccines when exposed to stories including vaccine misinformation. Notwithstanding, our results suggest a positive impact of a trusted source communicating the scientific consensus about vaccines. Zika virus represents a particular case showing how missing information can easily evolve into misinformation. Implications for effective dissemination of information are discussed.

Effects of fact-checking social media vaccine misinformation on attitudes toward vaccines

Social media vaccine misinformation can negatively influence vaccine attitudes. It is urgent to develop communication approaches to reduce the misinformation's impact. This study aimed to test the effects of fact-checking labels for misinformation on attitudes toward vaccines. An online survey experiment with 1198 participants recruited from a U.S. national sample was conducted in 2018. Participants were randomly assigned to six conditions: misinformation control, or fact-checking label conditions attributed to algorithms, news media, health institutions, research universities, or fact-checking organizations. We analyzed differences in vaccine attitudes between the fact-checking label and control conditions. Further, we compared perceived expertise and trustworthiness of the five categories of fact-checking sources. Fact-checking labels attached to misinformation posts made vaccine attitudes more positive compared to the misinformation control condition (P = .003, Cohen's d= 0.21). Conspiracy ideation moderated the effect of the labels on vaccine attitudes (P = .02). Universities and health institutions were rated significantly higher on source expertise than other sources. Mediation analyses showed labels attributed to universities and health institutions indirectly resulted in more positive attitudes than other sources through perceived expertise. Exposure to fact-checking labels on misinformation can generate more positive attitudes toward vaccines in comparison to exposure to misinformation. Incorporating labels from trusted universities and health institutions on social media platforms is a promising direction for addressing the vaccine misinformation problem. This points to the necessity for closer collaboration between public health and research institutions and social media companies to join efforts in addressing the current misinformation threat.

Misinformation and other elements in HPV vaccine tweets: an experimental comparison

Our study examined how misinformation and other elements of social media messages affect antecedents to human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination of adolescents. In 2017-2018, we randomly assigned a national sample of 1206 U.S. parents of adolescents to view one tweet using a 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 between-subjects factorial experiment. The 16 experimental tweets varied four messaging elements: misinformation (misinformation or not), source (person or organization), narrative style (storytelling or scientific data), and topic (effectiveness or safety). Parents reported their motivation to vaccinate (primary outcome), trust in social media content, and perceived risk about HPV-related diseases. Tweets without misinformation elicited higher HPV vaccine motivation than tweets with misinformation (25% vs. 5%, OR = 6.60, 95% CI:4.05, 10.75). Motivation was higher for tweets from organizations versus persons (20% vs. 10%, OR = 2.47, 95% CI:1.52, 4.03) and about effectiveness versus safety (20% vs. 10%, OR = 2.03, 95% CI:1.24, 3.30). Tweets with misinformation produced lower trust and higher perceived risk (both p < .01), with impact varying depending on source and topic. In conclusion, misinformation was the most potent social media messaging element. It may undermine progress in HPV vaccination.

"Vaccines for pregnant women…?! Absurd" - Mapping maternal vaccination discourse and stance on social media over six months

OBJECTIVE

To understand the predominant topics of discussion, stance and associated language used on social media platforms relating to maternal vaccines in 15 countries over a six-month period.

BACKGROUND

In 2019, the World Health Organisation prioritised vaccine hesitancy as a top ten global health threat and recognized the role of viral misinformation on social media as propagating vaccine hesitancy. Maternal vaccination offers the potential to improve maternal and child health, and to reduce the risk of severe morbidity and mortality in pregnancy. Understanding the topics of discussion, stance and language used around maternal vaccines on social media can inform public health bodies on how to combat vaccine misinformation and vaccine hesitancy.

METHODS

Social media data was extracted (Twitter, forums, blogs and comments) for six months from 15 countries (Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, India, Italy, Korea, Mexico, Panama, South Africa, Spain, United Kingdom and United States). We used stance, discourse and topic analysis to provide insight into the most frequent and weighted keywords, hashtags and themes of conversation within and across countries.

RESULTS

We exported a total of 19,192 social media posts in 16 languages obtained between 1st November 2018 and 30th April 2019. After screening all posts, 16,000 were included in analyses, while excluding retweets, 2,722 were annotated for sentiment. Main topics of discussion were the safety of the maternal influenza and pertussis vaccines. Discouraging posts were most common in Italy (44.9%), and the USA (30.8%).

CONCLUSION

The content and stance of maternal vaccination posts from November 2018 to April 2019 differed across countries, however specific topics of discussion were not limited to geographical location. These discussions included the promotion of vaccination, involvement of pregnant women in vaccine research, and the trust and transparency of institutions. Future research should examine the relationship between stance (promotional, neutral, ambiguous, discouraging) online and maternal vaccination uptake in the respective regions.

The effects of source expertise and trustworthiness on recollection: the case of vaccine misinformation

Designing effective communication strategies for correcting vaccines misinformation requires an understanding of how the target group might react to information from different sources. The present study examined whether erroneous inferences about vaccination could be effectively corrected by a perceived credible (i.e. expert or trustworthy) source. Two experiments are reported using a standard continued influence paradigm, each featuring two correction conditions on vaccine misinformation. Participants were presented with a story containing a piece of information that was later retracted by a perceived credible or not so credible source. Experiment 1 showed that providing a correction reduced participants' use of the original erroneous information, yet the overall reliance on misinformation did not significantly differ between the low- and high-expertise correction groups. Experiment 2 revealed that a correction from a high-trustworthy source decreased participants' reliance on misinformation when making inferences; nonetheless, it did not positively affect the reported intent to vaccinate one's child. Overall, source trustworthiness was more relevant than source expertise.

Parents' beliefs in misinformation about vaccines are strengthened by pro-vaccine campaigns

The main objective of this study was to determine whether one of the most commonly employed pro-vaccination strategies based on the "myths vs. facts" format can be considered an effective tool to counter vaccines misinformation. Sixty parents were randomly presented with either a control message or a booklet confronting some common myths about vaccines with a number of facts. Beliefs in the autism/vaccines link and in vaccines side effects, along with intention to vaccinate one's child, were evaluated both immediately after the intervention and after a 7-day delay to reveal possible backfire effects. Data provided support for the existence of backfire effects associated with the use of the myths vs. facts format, with parents in this condition having stronger vaccine misconceptions over time compared with participants in the control condition. The myths vs. facts strategy proved to be ineffective. Efforts to counter vaccine misinformation should take into account the many variables that affect the parents' decision-making.