The Be REAL Framework: Enhancing Relationship-Building Skills for Community Health Workers.

Trust plays an integral part in the effective functioning of public health systems. During the COVID-19 pandemic, distrust of public health fueled vaccine hesitancy and created additional barriers to immunization. Although most Americans have received at least one COVID-19 vaccine, the percentage of fully immunized adults remains suboptimal. To reach vaccine-hesitant communities, it is vital that public health be worthy of trust. As trusted members of their communities, community health workers (CHWs) can serve as ideal messengers and conversation partners for vaccination decision-making. We developed the Be REAL framework and training materials to prepare CHWs to work with vaccine-hesitant communities nationwide. Through the four steps of "Relate," "Explore," "Assist," and "Leave (the door open)," CHWs were taught to prioritize relationship building as a primary goal. In this shift from focusing on adherence to public health recommendations (e.g., get vaccinated) to building relationships, the value of vaccine uptake is secondary to the quality of the relationship being formed. The Be REAL framework facilitates CHWs harnessing the power they already possess. The goal of the Be REAL framework is to foster true partnership between CHWs and community members, which in turn can help increase trust in the broader public health system beyond adherence to a specific recommendation.

Development of a Scale to Measure Trust in Public Health Authorities: Prevalence of Trust and Association with Vaccination.

Infectious disease outbreaks highlight the importance of trust in public health authorities to avoid fear and improve adherence to recommendations. There is currently no established and validated measure for trust in public health authorities. We aimed to develop and validate an instrument that measures trust in public health authorities and to assess the association between trust in public health authorities and vaccine attitudes. We developed 20 items to measure trust in public health authorities. After implementing a survey in January 2020, we investigated relationships between the items, reduced the number of items, and identified latent constructs of the scale. We assessed variability in trust and how trust was associated with vaccine attitudes, beliefs, and self-reported vaccine acceptance. The pool was reduced to a 14-item trust in public health authorities scale and we found that this trust model was strongly associated with acceptance of vaccines. Our scale can be used to examine the relationship between trust in public health authorities and adherence to public health recommendations. The measure needs to be validated in other settings to determine whether they are associated with other areas where the public question public health authority recommendations.

The Voices on Vax Campaign: Lessons Learned from Engaging Youth to Promote COVID Vaccination.

BACKGROUND: The Voices on Vax campaign was a collaborative effort that engaged youth to create an interactive website and social media presence to increase COVID vaccine confidence and uptake among African American families in Baltimore, Maryland. OBJECTIVES: To describe lessons learned and offer recommendations for future health communication campaigns involving youth ambassadors and virtual platforms. METHODS: We collected website analytics and limited data from pop-up surveys on the Voices on Vax website, as well as reflections from the youth ambassadors about their experiences. LESSONS LEARNED: Challenges included difficulties engaging the priority population and methodological limitations of our campaign's impact evaluation. Successes included our focus on youth and adaptive engagement strategies. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend using techniques to maximize engagement by the priority population, conducting in-person outreach, incorporating mixed methods data collection, and providing a mix of structured training and creative freedom to youth ambassadors.

Brief Report: Challenges in Obtaining the Informed Perspectives of Stakeholders Regarding HIV Molecular Epidemiology.

BACKGROUND: HIV molecular epidemiology (HIV-ME) is now being used in a variety of ways, including molecular HIV surveillance to help identify and respond to emerging HIV transmission clusters as specified in the Ending the HIV Epidemic in the U.S. initiative. However, HIV-ME in general, and its use for cluster detection and response, in particular, raises significant ethical and social concerns, which have spurred vigorous debates. Nevertheless, there is a paucity of information regarding how these potential benefits and concerns are perceived among people living with HIV and people without HIV at an increased risk. SETTING: Virtual engagement with US participants. METHODS: We rigorously developed a brief informational video about HIV-ME and conducted a series of in-depth interviews with people living with HIV and people without HIV at an increased risk. RESULTS: Through extensive stakeholder engagement during the video development process and subsequent in-depth interviews (N = 24), several preliminary findings surfaced. In contrast to the high level of concern raised by some critics of HIV-ME, our data appear to show broad support for it. In addition, we observed conflation of perspectives about HIV-ME with concerns about HIV public health surveillance more generally. CONCLUSION: Our experiences reveal substantial communication challenges related to the nature of HIV-ME that need to be overcome to ensure that it is properly understood, which is necessary for meaningfully engaging stakeholders in discussions about its use. Moreover, ongoing, responsive, engagement efforts are critical. Additional systematic data are needed to help inform policy making and practice regarding HIV-ME.

The Use of Narrative in Science and Health Communication: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Many people deny science and reject health recommendations despite widely distributed facts and statistics. Didactic science and health communication is often dry, and relies on the false assumption that people make purely evidence-based decisions. Stories can be a powerful teaching tool by capturing attention and evoking emotion. OBJECTIVE: We explore the impact and appeal of, and describe best practices for, using narrative (storytelling) versus didactic methods in science and health communication. PATIENT INVOLVEMENT: No patients were involved in the review process. METHODS: We searched PubMed and Web of Science for articles either: assessing effectiveness of narrative science/health communication; assessing acceptability of (or preference for) narrative science/health communication; giving advice on how best to use narrative; and/or providing science-based explanations for how/why narrative succeeds. RESULTS: Narrative science/health communication is effective and appealing for audiences across a variety of topics and mediums, with supporting evidence across fields such as epidemiology, neuroscience, and psychology. Whether narrative or didactic messaging is most effective depends on the topic, audience, and objective, as well as message quality. However, combining narrative with didactic methods is likely to be more effective than using either strategy alone. DISCUSSION: Narrative science/health communication merits wider implementation and further research. Narrative communication creates openness to information by delaying the formulation of counterarguments. PRACTICAL VALUE: Science and health communicators should collaborate with cultural and storytelling experts, work directly with their target audiences throughout the message development and testing processes, and rely on popular story elements (e.g., first-person point of view, relatable protagonists) to improve the comprehension, engagement, and thoughtful consideration of their intended audience. FUNDING: This work was funded by Thirty Meter Telescope, with which two authors (GKS and SD) were affiliated. Otherwise, the funding organization had no role in the study and/or submission.

COVID-19 vaccination attitudes, values, intentions: US parents for their children, September 2021.

OBJECTIVES: To compare vaccine-related attitudes and values of parents of children 2-17 years old to other adults, examine intentions to vaccinate their children, and identify factors associated with intending to vaccinate children. METHODS: A nationally representative survey was conducted in September 2021 (just before the EUA for children 5-11 years old) using Ipsos KnowledgePanel, a probability-based web panel. The survey measured COVID-19 vaccination status, intentions, attitudes, values, and trust in public health authorities among US adults. Scale response options to survey items were dichotomized, and cross-tabulations and logistic regressions were performed. RESULTS: Parents had lower odds of reporting being vaccinated against COVID-19 than other adults even after adjusting for associated sociodemographic characteristics such as age (aOR: 0.66; 95 %CI: 0.50-0.87). The most prevalent parental concerns about COVID-19 vaccines included the speed of their development (88 %), potential side effects (78 %), suspicion of government (77 %), and suspicion of pharmaceutical companies (72 %). Fewer than half (42 %) of parents intended to vaccinate their children 5-11 years old, while 38 % were uncertain and 20 % were unlikely to ever vaccinate their children. Vaccinated parents had higher odds than unvaccinated parents of intending to vaccinate their children (OR: 675.51; 95 %CI: 106.46-4286.12). Discussions with healthcare providers who encouraged COVID-19 vaccination were positively associated with intent to vaccinate children (OR: 11.29; 95 %CI: 2.60-49.02). CONCLUSIONS: We found parental vaccination and conversations with providers were positively associated with intent to vaccinate children. Decisions about childhood vaccination need to be supported by healthcare providers and a public health system that makes vaccine access and related information equitable and accessible. Vaccination-related decision making should be guided by healthcare providers and provide information about safety and risk to children.

Evaluation of online videos to engage viewers and support decision-making for COVID-19 vaccination: how narratives and race/ethnicity enhance viewer experiences.

Background: Vaccine hesitancy has hampered the control of COVID-19 and other vaccine-preventable diseases. Methods: We conducted a national internet-based, quasi-experimental study to evaluate COVID-19 vaccine informational videos. Participants received an informational animated video paired with the randomized assignment of (1) a credible source (differing race/ethnicity) and (2) sequencing of a personal narrative before or after the video addressing their primary vaccine concern. We examined viewing time and asked video evaluation questions to those who viewed the full video. Results: Among 14,235 participants, 2,422 (17.0%) viewed the full video. Those who viewed a personal story first (concern video second) were 10 times more likely to view the full video (p < 0.01). Respondent-provider race/ethnicity congruence was associated with increased odds of viewing the full video (aOR: 1.89, p < 0.01). Most viewers rated the informational video(s) to be helpful, easy to understand, trustworthy, and likely to impact others' vaccine decisions, with differences by demographics and also vaccine intentions and concerns. Conclusion: Using peer-delivered, personal narrative, and/or racially congruent credible sources to introduce and deliver vaccine safety information may improve the openness of vaccine message recipients to messages and engagement.

LetsTalkShots: personalized vaccine risk communication.

Introduction: Vaccine hesitancy is a global health threat undermining control of many vaccine-preventable diseases. Patient-level education has largely been ineffective in reducing vaccine concerns and increasing vaccine uptake. We built and evaluated a personalized vaccine risk communication website called LetsTalkShots in English, Spanish and French (Canadian) for vaccines across the lifespan. LetsTalkShots tailors lived experiences, credible sources and informational animations to disseminate the right message from the right messenger to the right person, applying a broad range of behavioral theories. Methods: We used mixed-methods research to test our animation and some aspects of credible sources and personal narratives. We conducted 67 discussion groups (n = 325 persons), stratified by race/ethnicity (African American, Hispanic, and White people) and population (e.g., parents, pregnant women, adolescents, younger adults, and older adults). Using a large Ipsos survey among English-speaking respondents (n = 2,272), we tested animations aligned with vaccine concerns and specific to population (e.g., parents of children, parents of adolescents, younger adults, older adults). Results: Discussion groups provided robust feedback specific to each animation as well as areas for improvements across animations. Most respondents indicated that the information presented was interesting (85.5%), clear (96.0%), helpful (87.0%), and trustworthy (82.2%). Discussion: Tailored vaccine risk communication can assist decision makers as they consider vaccination for themselves, their families, and their communities. LetsTalkShots presents a model for personalized communication in other areas of medicine and public health.

Corrigendum: LetsTalkShots: personalized vaccine risk communication.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1195751.].

Factors Affecting SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination Intent and Decision Making Among African American, Native American, and Hispanic Participants in a Qualitative Study.

Limited studies are available on how decisions and perceptions on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination have changed since the start of vaccination availability. We performed a qualitative study to identify factors critical to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination decision making and how perspectives evolved among African American/Black, Native American, and Hispanic communities disproportionately affected by COVID-19 and social and economic disadvantage. We conducted 16 virtual meetings, with 232 participants in wave 1 meetings (December 2020) and with 206 returning participants in wave 2 meetings (January and February 2021). Wave 1 vaccine concerns in all communities included information needs, vaccine safety, and speed of vaccine development. Lack of trust in government and the pharmaceutical industry was influential, particularly among African American/Black and Native American participants. Participants showed more willingness to get vaccinated at wave 2 than at wave 1, indicating that many of their information needs had been addressed. Hesitancy remained greater among African American/Black and Native American participants than among Hispanic participants. Participants in all groups indicated that conversations tailored to their community and with those most trustworthy to them would be helpful. To overcome vaccine hesitancy, we propose a model of fully considered SARS-CoV-2 vaccine decision making, whereby public health departments supply information, align with community values and recognize lived experiences, offer support for decision making, and make vaccination easy and convenient.

COVID-19 Vaccination Status, Attitudes, and Values among US Adults in September 2021.

Background: The Delta COVID-19 variant caused a resurgence in cases and deaths during the summer of 2021, particularly among the unvaccinated, highlighting the need to increase vaccine coverage. We describe a survey conducted in September 2021, in the midst of the Delta variant surge, after the FDA fully approved Pfizer-BioNTech's vaccine for ages 16+ and issued an emergency use authorization for ages 12−15. Methods and Findings: US adults were surveyed to measure COVID-19 vaccination status, intentions, attitudes, values, and trust in public health authorities. More than three-quarters (77%) reported receiving at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccination. Of the unvaccinated, 6% intended to vaccinate, 40% were unlikely to ever vaccinate, and 55% remained uncertain. Most of the unvaccinated were <45 years old (62%), without a bachelor's degree (83%), earning less than $85,000 annually (74%), and Republican/Independent (66%). Concerns among the unvaccinated-yet-still-uncertain included the vaccines' safety (86%), speed of development (86%), and suspicion of government (79%) and pharmaceutical companies (69%). Most (86%) of the unvaccinated reported they would not vaccinate if mandated by their employer. About one third (34%) of the unvaccinated reported facing at least one barrier to vaccination. Conclusion: More than half of unvaccinated adults remained uncertain about COVID-19 vaccination, indicating an opportunity to support their decision making. Public health must increase easy and equitable access to vaccination and renew efforts to provide unvaccinated populations access to information from trusted sources.

Walking the Tightrope: Reevaluating science communication in the era of COVID-19 vaccines.

Scientists are trained to be skeptical and not overstate the existing evidence. This cautiousness is a valuable asset when working in scientific research, where the goal is the pursuit of knowledge and truth. It becomes a handicap when scientists are asked to communicate to the public about pressing topics such as COVID-19 vaccines. Often in such contexts, immediate recommendations are sought, and decisions must be made even when complete evidence is lacking. For scientists to be effective public communicators, they must adjust their mindset and embrace brevity, clarity, and other principles of effective communication. Focusing messages on what is known fosters public confidence in taking needed actions, whereas focusing on what is still unknown fosters inaction and seeds doubt. The implementation of principles of effective communication does not inherently conflict with maintaining scientific accuracy and acknowledging uncertainty, but it does require additional care, effort, and training.

Reflections On Governance, Communication, And Equity: Challenges And Opportunities In COVID-19 Vaccination.

The US response to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been plagued with politics driving public health and messaging. As a result, COVID-19 vaccine rollout is occurring in an environment ill equipped to achieve broad acceptance of the vaccine. Addressing public concerns unlocks the potential for high vaccine coverage; this is best achieved when science and values, not politics, inform public health. A multifaceted and thorough engagement and communication plan that is responsive to the concerns and values of different groups must be swiftly yet carefully implemented in a coordinated manner by federal, state, and local governments. Effective communication will require rapid and rigorous science to promptly differentiate between adverse events following immunization that are causally related versus simply coincidental. Health care providers, in particular, will need support to process the otherwise potentially overwhelming amount of relevant information and effectively integrate it into discussions with their patients to support their decision making. An equitable COVID-19 immunization program could substantively reduce the disproportionate risks associated with this pandemic.

Ethical and policy implications of vaccinomics in the United States: community members' perspectives.

Objectives: We aimed to elucidate public values regarding the use of genomics to improve vaccine development and use (vaccinomics).Methods: Adults ≥18 years-old were recruited through social media and community organizations, and randomly assigned to one of four nested discussion groups in Boulder, CO and Baltimore, MD. Participants rated their confidence in vaccine safety and effectiveness prior to and after discussing vaccinomics. Before departing, they prioritized funding for vaccinomics versus federal priorities (vaccine safety and efficacy, new vaccines, and free vaccines) and chronic diseases (cancer, heart disease, and diabetes). Grounded Theory-influenced methods were used to identify themes.Results: Participants broadly supported vaccinomics. Emergent themes: concerns about reduced privacy/confidentiality, increased genetically based stigma/discrimination, and reduced agency to make vaccine-related decisions through genetically based prioritization. Participants supported vaccinomics' potential for increased personalization. Some participants favored prioritizing others over themselves during a vaccine shortage, while others did not. Some participants worried health insurance companies would discriminate against them based on information discovered through vaccinomics. Participants feared inequitable implementation of vaccinomics would contribute to discrimination and marginalization of vulnerable populations. Discussing vaccinomics did not impact perceptions of vaccine safety and effectiveness. Federal funding for vaccinomics was broadly supported.Conclusion: Participants supported vaccinomics' potential for increased personalization, noting policy safeguards to facilitate equitable implementation and protect privacy were needed. Despite some concerns, participants hoped vaccinomics would improve vaccine safety and effectiveness. Policies regarding vaccinomics' implementation must address public concerns about the privacy and confidentiality of genetic information and potential inequities in access to vaccinomics' benefits.

COVID-19 vaccination attitudes, values and intentions among United States adults prior to emergency use authorization.

INTRODUCTION: Safe and effective vaccines against Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) provide the best opportunity to control the pandemic. Having safe and efficacious vaccines available is only half the equation; people must also take them. We describe a study to identify COVID-19 vaccine attitudes, values and intentions immediately preceding authorization of COVID-19 vaccines in the US. METHODS: A national panel survey was conducted to measure intent to receive COVID-19 vaccines as well as disease and vaccine attitudes, values and trust in local, state and federal public health authorities. RESULTS: Greater than 80% of respondents reported confidence they could adhere to COVID recommendations such as mask wearing, social distancing and hand washing. The majority of respondents (70%) reported believing that current drugs were somewhat or very good at treating COVID-19 infection. Vaccine intent fell into three groups: Intenders (50%), Wait and Learn (40%), and Unlikelys (10%). Intent to get vaccinated was substantially lower among African American (32%), and higher among men (56%), those over 60 years of age (61%), those with a Bachelor's degree or higher (63%), and Democrats (63%). The Wait and Learn group, compared to the Intenders, were less likely to report being diagnosed with a high risk condition for COVID-19, receiving an influenza vaccine in the past 12 months, discussing COVID-19 vaccine with their healthcare provider, perceiving COVID-19 as severe, considering a COVID-19 vaccine important to stop the spread of infection, and wering a mask usually or almost always. CONCLUSION: Only half of US adults intend to accept COVID-19 vaccines; most others (40%) are uncertain. Levels of immunity associated with community protection will not be achieved without reaching those who are currently uncertain. Characterizing COVID-19 vaccine attitudes and intentions and ascertaining values and trust in local, state, and federal public health authorities that impact vaccine decision-making are essential.

Vaccinomics: a cross-sectional survey of public values.

Objective: We characterize public values regarding vaccinomics, which aims to improve vaccine safety and effectiveness using genomics.Methods: Panel survey (2020) of ≥18-year-olds with embedded animation introduced vaccinomics. Sociodemographic, health, and vaccination-related items were adapted from validated scales. Novel items measured trust in public health authorities, vaccinomics-related values, and preferences for federal funding: vaccinomics compared with vaccine issues and chronic diseases. Beginning and end of survey confidence in vaccine safety was measured to assess potential changes. Data were weighted to the U.S. Census. Vaccinomics-related concerns were stratified by sociodemographic characteristics, vaccine hesitancy status (composite outcome), reported serious vaccine reactions, and trust in public health authorities (PHA). Log binomial regression models estimated associations between these variables and agency to make vaccine-related decisions.Results: Most (70.7%, N = 1,925) respondents expected vaccinomics would increase their vaccine confidence compared to now. Agreement was highest among those without serious vaccine reaction experience (unexperienced: 74.2% versus experienced: 62.3%), with high trust in PHA (high: 83.3% versus low: 57.4%), and low vaccine hesitancy among parents of teenagers (low: 78.8% versus high: 62.5%) and adults without minor children (low: 79.8% versus high: 60.6%; all p < .01). Belief that vaccination was an individual's choice was associated with reported serious reactions (adjusted Prevalence Ratio (aPR): 1.16; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.25) and low trust (aPR: 0.91; 0.84, 0.98). Beginning versus end of survey vaccine safety perceptions were similar.Conclusion: Federal funding, communications, and policies should assure the public that vaccinomics will not remove their decision-making power and engender trust in PHA.

The public's role in COVID-19 vaccination: Human-centered recommendations to enhance pandemic vaccine awareness, access, and acceptance in the United States.

Given the social and economic upheavals caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, political leaders, health officials, and members of the public are eager for solutions. One of the most promising, if they can be successfully developed, is vaccines. While the technological development of such countermeasures is currently underway, a key social gap remains. Past experience in routine and crisis contexts demonstrates that uptake of vaccines is more complicated than simply making the technology available. Vaccine uptake, and especially the widespread acceptance of vaccines, is a social endeavor that requires consideration of human factors. To provide a starting place for this critical component of a future COVID-19 vaccination campaign in the United States, the 23-person Working Group on Readying Populations for COVID-19 Vaccines was formed. One outcome of this group is a synthesis of the major challenges and opportunities associated with a future COVID-19 vaccination campaign and empirically-informed recommendations to advance public understanding of, access to, and acceptance of vaccines that protect against SARS-CoV-2. While not inclusive of all possible steps than could or should be done to facilitate COVID-19 vaccination, the working group believes that the recommendations provided are essential for a successful vaccination program.