The language of vaccination campaigns during COVID-19.

Understanding what makes communication effective when designing public health messages is of key importance. This applies in particular to vaccination campaigns, which aim to encourage vaccine uptake and respond to vaccine hesitancy and dispel any myth or misinformation. This paper explores the ways in which the governments of Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) promoted COVID-19 vaccination as a first-line strategy and studies health message effectiveness by examining the language of official vaccination campaigns, vaccine uptake across the different nations and the health message preferences of unvaccinated and vaccine sceptic individuals. The study considers communications beginning at the first lockdown until the point when daily COVID-19 updates ended for each nation. A corpus linguistic analysis of official government COVID-19 updates is combined with a qualitative examination of the expression of evaluation in governmental discourses, feedback from a Public Involvement Panel and insights from a nationally representative survey of adults in Great Britain to explore message production and reception. Fully vaccinated, unvaccinated and sceptic respondents showed similar health messaging preferences and perceptions of health communication efficacy, but unvaccinated and sceptic participants reported lower levels of compliance for all health messages considered. These results suggest that issues in health communication are not limited to vaccination hesitancy, and that in the future, successful vaccination campaigns need to address the determining factors of public attitudes and beliefs besides communication strategies.

The reception of public health messages during the COVID-19 pandemic

Understanding the reception of public health messages in public-facing communications is of key importance to health agencies in managing crises, pandemics, and other health threats. Established public health communications strategies including self-efficacy messaging, fear appeals, and moralising messaging were all used during the Coronavirus pandemic. We explore the reception of public health messages to understand the efficacy of these established messaging strategies in the COVID-19 context. Taking a community-focussed approach, we combine a corpus linguistic analysis with methods of wider engagement, namely, a public survey and interactions with a Public Involvement Panel to analyse this type of real-world public health discourse. Our findings indicate that effective health messaging content provides manageable instructions, which inspire public confidence that following the guidance is worthwhile. Messaging that appeals to the audience's morals or fears in order to provide a rationale for compliance can be polarising and divisive, producing a strongly negative emotional response from the public and potentially undermining social cohesion. Provenance of the messaging alongside text-external political factors also have an influence on messaging uptake. In addition, our findings highlight key differences in messaging uptake by audience age, which demonstrates the importance of tailored communications and the need to seek public feedback to test the efficacy of messaging with the relevant demographics. Our study illustrates the value of corpus linguistics to public health agencies and health communications professionals, and we share our recommendations for improving the public health messaging both in the context of the ongoing pandemic and for future novel and re-emerging infectious disease outbreaks.