Vaccination invitations sent by warm and competent medical professionals disclosing risks and benefits increase trust and booking intention and reduce inequalities between ethnic groups.

OBJECTIVE: We aim to identify vaccination invitations that foster trust and improve vaccination uptake overall, especially among ethnic minority groups who are more at risk from coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and less likely to be vaccinated. METHOD: In a preregistered 4 × 4 mixed-design experiment, we manipulated how much risk-benefit information the message included within-subjects and the message source between-subjects (N = 4,038 U.K. and U.S. participants, 50% ethnic minority). Participants read four vaccine invitations that varied in vaccination risk-benefit information (randomized order): control (no information), benefits only, risk and benefit, and risk and benefit that mentions vulnerable groups. The messages were sent by one of four sources (random allocation): control (health institution), medical professional (unnamed), warm and competent medical professional (unnamed), and named warm and competent medical professional (Sanjay/Lamar). Participants assessed how much they trusted the message and how likely they would be to book their vaccination appointment. RESULTS: Information about vaccination benefits and risks increased trust, especially among ethnic minority groups-for whom the effect replicated within each group. Trust also increased when the message was sent by a warm and competent medical professional relative to a health institution, but the importance of the source mattered less when more information was shared. CONCLUSIONS: Our research demonstrates the positive impact of outlining the benefits and disclosing the risks of COVID vaccines in vaccination invitation messages. Having a warm and competent medical professional source can also increase trust, especially where the message is limited in scope. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

How Should Doctors Frame the Risk of a Vaccine's Adverse Side Effects? It Depends on How Trustworthy They Are.

BACKGROUND: How health workers frame their communication about vaccines' probability of adverse side effects could play an important role in people's intentions to be vaccinated (e.g., positive frame: side effects are unlikely v. negative frame: there is a chance of side effects). Based on the pragmatic account of framing as implicit advice, we expected that participants would report greater vaccination intentions when a trustworthy physician framed the risks positively (v. negatively), but we expected this effect would be reduced or reversed when the physician was untrustworthy. DESIGN: In 4 online experiments (n = 191, snowball sampling and n = 453, 451, and 464 UK residents via Prolific; Mage≈ 34 y, 70% women, 84% White British), we manipulated the trustworthiness of a physician and how they framed the risk of adverse side effects in a scenario (i.e., a chance v. unlikely adverse side effects). Participants reported their vaccination intention, their level of distrust in health care systems, and COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs. RESULTS: Physicians who were trustworthy (v. untrustworthy) consistently led to an increase in vaccination intention, but the way they described adverse side effects mattered too. A positive framing of the risks given by a trustworthy physician consistently led to increased vaccination intention relative to a negative framing, but framing had no effect or the opposite effect when given by an untrustworthy physician. The exception to this trend occurred in unvaccinated individuals in experiment 3, following serious concerns about one of the COVID vaccines. In that study, unvaccinated participants responded more favorably to the negative framing of the trustworthy physician. CONCLUSIONS: Trusted sources should use positive framing to foster vaccination acceptance. However, in a situation of heightened fears, a negative framing-attracting more attention to the risks-might be more effective. HIGHLIGHTS: How health workers frame their communication about a vaccine's probability of adverse side effects plays an important role in people's intentions to be vaccinated.In 4 experiments, we manipulated the trustworthiness of a physician and how the physician framed the risk of adverse side effects of a COVID vaccine.Positive framing given by a trustworthy physician promoted vaccination intention but had null effect or did backfire when given by an untrustworthy physician.The effect occurred over and above participants' attitude toward the health care system, risk perceptions, and beliefs in COVID misinformation.

Endorsement of alternative medicine and vaccine hesitancy among physicians: A cross-sectional study in four European countries.

Vaccine hesitancy has become a threat to public health, especially as it is a phenomenon that has also been observed among healthcare professionals. In this study, we analyzed the relationship between endorsement of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and vaccination attitudes and behaviors among healthcare professionals, using a cross-sectional sample of physicians with vaccination responsibilities from four European countries: Germany, Finland, Portugal, and France (total N = 2,787). Our results suggest that, in all the participating countries, CAM endorsement is associated with lower frequency of vaccine recommendation, lower self-vaccination rates, and being more open to patients delaying vaccination, with these relationships being mediated by distrust in vaccines. A latent profile analysis revealed that a profile characterized by higher-than-average CAM endorsement and lower-than-average confidence and recommendation of vaccines occurs, to some degree, among 19% of the total sample, although these percentages varied from one country to another: 23.72% in Germany, 17.83% in France, 9.77% in Finland, and 5.86% in Portugal. These results constitute a call to consider health care professionals' attitudes toward CAM as a factor that could hinder the implementation of immunization campaigns.

When Science Becomes Embroiled in Conflict: Recognizing the Public's Need for Debate while Combating Conspiracies and Misinformation.

Most democracies seek input from scientists to inform policies. This can put scientists in a position of intense scrutiny. Here we focus on situations in which scientific evidence conflicts with people's worldviews, preferences, or vested interests. These conflicts frequently play out through systematic dissemination of disinformation or the spreading of conspiracy theories, which may undermine the public's trust in the work of scientists, muddy the waters of what constitutes truth, and may prevent policy from being informed by the best available evidence. However, there are also instances in which public opposition arises from legitimate value judgments and lived experiences. In this article, we analyze the differences between politically-motivated science denial on the one hand, and justifiable public opposition on the other. We conclude with a set of recommendations on tackling misinformation and understanding the public's lived experiences to preserve legitimate democratic debate of policy.

Ambiguity and unintended inferences about risk messages for COVID-19.

The World Health Organization established that the risk of suffering severe symptoms from coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is higher for some groups, but this does not mean their chances of infection are higher. However, public health messages often highlight the "increased risk" for these groups such that the risk could be interpreted as being about contracting an infection rather than suffering severe symptoms from the illness (as intended). Stressing the risk for vulnerable groups may also prompt inferences that individuals not highlighted in the message have lower risk than previously believed. In five studies, we investigated how U.K. residents interpreted such risk messages about COVID-19 (n = 396, n = 399, n = 432, n = 474) and a hypothetical new virus (n = 454). Participants recognized that the risk was about experiencing severe symptoms, but over half also believed that the risk was about infection, and had a corresponding heightened perception that vulnerable people were more likely to be infected. Risk messages that clarified the risk event reduced misinterpretations for a hypothetical new virus, but existing misinterpretations of coronavirus risks were resistant to correction. We discuss the need for greater clarity in public health messaging by distinguishing between the two risk events. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).